SPRINGER BRIEFS IN
APPLIED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY
Christine Charyton
Creative Engineering
Design Assessment
Background,
Directions, Manual,
Scoring Guide
and Uses
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences
and Technology
For further volumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/8884
Christine Charyton
Creative Engineering
Design Assessment
Background, Directions, Manual,
Scoring Guide and Uses
123
Christine Charyton
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
USA
ISSN 2191-530X
ISBN 978-1-4471-5378-8
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-5379-5
ISSN 2191-5318 (electronic)
ISBN 978-1-4471-5379-5 (eBook)
Springer London Heidelberg New York Dordrecht
Library of Congress Control Number: 2013942993
Ó The Author(s) 2014
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief
excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the
purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the
work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of
the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must
always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the
Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
The CEDA should be administered in accordance with this manual and guide. Only persons who
purchase the book, read and follow the directions can reproduce and use the CEDA tool.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
To all the engineers that make a difference in
people’s lives. The word ‘‘engineer’’ comes
from the Latin word ‘‘Ingeniatorum’’ meaning ‘‘ingenious,’’ with ‘‘gen’’ referring to
creation, or ‘‘Genesis.’’ The essence of the
words ‘‘creativity,’’ ‘‘create’’ and ‘‘engineer’’ stem from the act of creation.
In this light, I would also like to dedicate
this book to my parents, Alex Charyton and
June Charyton, for their encouragement
during the book writing process. I would also
like to dedicate this book to my husband,
John Elliott, for encouraging me to critically
process and assess my writing.
I would also like to thank the faculty at
Temple University for encouraging me to
pursue this path of research. I am grateful
for the opportunity to promote experiential
hands-on learning in my Psychology of Creativity class in the Department of Psychology
at Ohio State University. The course has
attracted many students from various majors
across the university.
I am also grateful for the opportunity to
promote experiential hands-on learning to
the student initiated Seminar for Promoting
Creativity and Innovation in the College of
Engineering. Furthermore, I express
gratitude to the Department of Neurology at
the Ohio State University Wexner Medical
Center for their support of my research.
Foreword
Our approach for the CEDA tool is unique. The standard accepted definition of
creativity includes originality (novelty) and usefulness. However, to date, no
assessments have directly measured these constructs. The CEDA is conceptualized
to measure originality and usefulness specific to engineering design in addition to
both divergent and convergent thinking.
Measurement is straightforward in that the assessor or judge (each rater) reads
all the word descriptions then uses their own ‘‘gut instinct’’ to decide on the
assessment of each design then looks for the word on the rubric that best describes
their initial perspective. This is paired with a number. When this initial work was
presented at the National Science Foundation (NSF) these aspects of measurement
were well-received. This approach is unique especially in comparison with the
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), which is very structured and has
received criticism for not reflecting ‘‘real-world’’ creativity.
The CEDA has been shown to be related to the Purdue Creativity Test (PCT)
which was normed on engineers in industry. The PCT was developed in 1960 and
has not been widely used.
Best wishes with your implementation of the CEDA.
vii
Preface
The Creative Engineering Design Assessment (CEDA): Background, Directions,
Manual, Scoring Guide and Uses has three chapters.
Chapter 1 contains the background and rationale for the CEDA tool. The
importance of creativity in engineering design, engineering education and the core
principals of engineering design are discussed.
Chapter 2 contains the CEDA manual and directions for administration and
scoring. The theoretical framework, reliability and validity are also provided in
this section. Components of measurement discussed include Fluency, Flexibility,
Originality and Usefulness. The CEDA is available seven languages: English,
Ukrainian, Spanish, Korean, French, Chinese and German. Directions for printing
and scoring the tool are in this section.
Chapter 3 includes intended uses of the CEDA. The aim and overall purpose of
the CEDA is to measure creativity specific to engineering design. The objective of
the designs are to help enrich people’s lives and to benefit humankind. The
importance of creativity in STEM, Industry, NASA and the military are discussed
in this section. Conclusions are also described. For further information regarding
administration and scoring, please contact the author. Contact information appears
at the end of the Acknowledgements section.
Best wishes with your interests and uses for the CEDA.
ix
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank all of the following in a ‘‘we’’ format since so many people
helped make this work possible. We are appreciative of all the people who have
helped out with this research from past publications and future publications that
are described in this book. Special gratitude goes to Alex Charyton and June
Charyton for their continuous support and to John O. Elliott for his continuous
editorial feedback during this book writing process. Thank you to William Clifton,
Samantha DeDios, Stephanie Bennett, Thornton Lothrop, Mark Miller, Jean
Wheasler, Laurin Turowski, Ankit Tayal, T. J. Starr, Berae McClary, and JongHun Sun. We would also like to thank Jong-Hun Sun, Mike Interiano, Myroslava
Mudrak, Kelly Tung-Steudler, Saebyul Lee, Magda Kolcio, and Martin Mueller
for translations of the CEDA into other languages. We also thank Richard Jagacinski, John A. Merrill, the Snelbecker Family in memory of Glenn E. Snelbecker,
and Yosef Alam for their feedback on earlier versions and revised versions of the
CEDA. We thank Mohammed Rahman for statistical consultation as well as Shane
Ruland, Larry Campbell, Paul Jones, and Marc Archuleta for their technical
assistance and expertise regarding this project. Additional gratitude goes to Blaine
Lilly and Glenn Elliott for their initial feedback and technological support,
respectively, in the development of the first version of the CEDA. We also thank
Judy Blau and Seth Blau for helping us find a German translator; we appreciate
their support and interest in this project. My colleagues and I look forward to
corporations and researchers from various universities and regions from around the
world who have expressed their interest, using the CEDA.
For further information contact:
Christine Charyton, Ph.D.
Ohio State University
1835 Neil Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210
USA
charyton.1@osu.edu
xi
xii
Acknowledgments
Please feel free to contact Dr. Charyton if you would like additional information or
training, scoring, and interpretation of the CEDA. Dr. Charyton can provide onsite training for your research, educational program, industry, NASA, or military
project.
Contents
1
2
An Overview of the Relevance of Creative Engineering Design:
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 The Importance of Creativity in Engineering Design . . . . . . .
1.2 Creativity in Engineering Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Core Principles of Creative Engineering Design . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Assessments to Measure Creativity in Engineering Design . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
2
5
6
8
CEDA Manual and Directions . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommended Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Directions for Administering the CEDA . . . .
Theoretical Framework of the CEDA. . . . . .
Components of Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Properties of the CEDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6.1 Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6.2 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6.3 Conceptualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.7 How to Score the CEDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8 Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.1 Fluency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.2 Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.3 Originality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8.4 Usefulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.9 Sample Design Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.10 Sample Scored Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.11 Directions for Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.12 CEDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.13 The CEDA Translated into Other Languages
2.13.1 Ukrainian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.13.2 Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.13.3 Korean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.13.4 French . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
11
11
12
13
14
15
15
15
17
18
18
20
20
21
22
22
24
24
26
30
30
34
38
42
The
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
xiii
xiv
Contents
2.13.5 Chinese (Mandarin). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.13.6 German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
50
54
Future Directions: Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 Importance to STEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Usability in Engineering Educational Programs .
3.3 Use in Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Use in NASA and the Military . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
57
58
61
65
66
67
About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Abbreviations
APA
CEDA
CPS
CRT
CSI
CT
EPM
GPA
IDEO
NASA
NSF
PCT
PVST-R
SMOG
STEM
TLX
TRIZ
TTCT
American Psychological Association
Creative Engineering Design Assessment
Creative Personality Scale
Cognitive Risk Tolerance Survey
Creativity Support Index
Creative Temperament Scale
Elementary Pragmatic Model
Grade Point Average
Innovation Design Engineering Organization
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Purdue Creativity Test
Purdue Visualization Spatial Test Rotations
Simple Measure of Gobbledygook
Science, Technology, Engineering Mathematics
Task Load Index
an acronym in Russian that translates in English to Theory of Inventive
Problem Solving
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
xv
Introduction
Creativity is no longer an optional accessory. Instead, creativity is a necessity for
innovation and prosperity. Creativity is a resource that is needed to survive and
solve everyday problems. Through practicing creative engineering design, we can
benefit humankind, especially now in our current global economic climate.
Creativity is a choice; one must desire to actively use their own creativity. One
needs to seek out opportunities to use creativity. Like a muscle, creativity needs to
be exercised on a regular basis. Just as one wishes to sing, play cello, piano or
guitar well, one needs to practice their instrument regularly. Creative skills can be
taught; however, one must be interested and engaged in using their own creativity
as a lifestyle choice. Individual creativity is related to positive emotions and health
which have traditionally been overlooked in psychology.
Engineering design has a long tradition of benefiting society and humankind
from conveniences to technology. Many of our modern conveniences that we often
take for granted stem from the creative engineering design process. The CEDA is a
tool for assessing creative engineering design. The CEDA can also be used to
assess the learning process and using creative engineering design skills.
Please be sure to read the book in entirety for adhering to purposes, goals and
objectives as well as follow directions before implementing your uses of the
CEDA. If you need further clarification, please contact Dr. Charyton.
xvii
Chapter 1
An Overview of the Relevance of Creative
Engineering Design: Background
1.1 The Importance of Creativity in Engineering Design
Creativity research in engineering began to blossom in the 1950s (Ferguson 1992).
The recommendations of Vannevar Bush, an electrical engineer from MIT, led to
establishment of the National Science Foundation in 1950. At the same time,
American Psychological Association (APA) President, J.P. Guilford, identified the
need for creativity research (Guilford 1950). ‘‘The research design, although not
essentially new, should be of interest’’ (Guilford, 1950, p. 444). Guilford (1950)
elaborated, ‘‘A creative pattern is manifest in creative behavior, which includes
such activities as inventing, designing, contriving, composing, and planning.
People who exhibit these types of behavior to a marked degree are recognized as
being creative’’ (p. 444). Guilford (1950) also stated that creative people have
novel or new ideas.
In the early 1960s, the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored conferences on ‘‘scientific creativity.’’ Yet, ‘‘as interest in engineering design faded in
most engineering schools, creativity was put on a back burner’’ (Ferguson 1992,
p. 57). More recently, creativity has received greater attention as a necessity, rather
than an accessory in engineering design (Charyton and Merrill 2009). In today’s
times, creativity is appreciated even more as a vital resource.
Creativity and innovation have been a hallmark of engineering. ‘‘Creativity is
certainly among the most important and pervasive of all human activities. Homes
and offices are filled with furniture, appliances, and other conveniences that are
products of human inventiveness’’ (Simonton 2000, p. 151). Psychology is valuable for addressing creativity in education by promoting learning through metacognition and self-reflective activities (Ishii and Miwa 2005).
The problems that engineers facing today demand original thinking. To remain
competitive globally, engineering firms rely on creative individuals and creative
teams to develop new products that drive the field forward. Design News (2007)
reported that 65 percent of engineers in the workforce (from mechanical,
application, and manufacturing engineering companies) agreed that today’s
engineers need to be more creative and innovative to be globally competitive
C. Charyton, Creative Engineering Design Assessment,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-5379-5_1, Ó The Author(s) 2014
1
2
1 An Overview of the Relevance
(Christiaans and Venselaar 2005). The need for creativity in engineering has led to
the development of numerous creativity support tools meant to aid engineers and
designers in the creative design process (Baillie and Walker 1998).
The method of teaching creativity to engineering students has also been a key
concern (Salter and Gann 2003). Engineering creativity specifically encompasses
problem finding and problem solving. However, problem finding has not been a
major focus of education. According to Nickerson (1999), creative problem
finding offers another avenue for increasing creative production in engineering.
Problem finding is common for an engineering designer who needs to think about
and solve unforeseen problems (Ferguson 1992). An engineer’s imagination and
creativity have the power to develop technological solutions to problems (Deal
2001). This can be achieved through problem finding and problem solving.
Acceptance of creative ideas is also relevant. Csikszentmihalyi (1999) suggested that the person, field, and domain are relevant to understanding creativity
and innovation. This theory postulates that acceptance of an idea, product, or
process by the field, such as engineering and the domain (such as science or
STEM—Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) is needed.
In engineering, there are often constraints in order to achieve design tasks.
Engineers may increase creative production through understanding their domainspecific constraints. Stokes (2005) described how types of constraints (tasks, goals,
subjects, functions, materials, and styles) may be unique to different domains.
Research by Fink et al. (1996) found that the relative number of creative inventions increased significantly as the task became more highly constrained. Constraints on design may need further assessment as technology evolves (Mahboub
et al. 2004; Redelinghuys 2001; Waks and Merdler 2003).
Engineers also utilize technology as a tool for design (Jones 1995; Smith 2002);
however, human beings remain vital (McDougnel and Braungart 2002) for design
and innovation. Products are sometimes invented by users to improve our everyday
lives and social functioning (Von Hippel 2005). For example, communication
tools that utilize technology often benefit consumers. Engineers can foresee these
potential consumer needs. Such products can increase productivity and contribute
to innovation which is the future of the engineering field (Jones 1995).
1.2 Creativity in Engineering Education
Today’s engineers need to be creative and innovative in order to enhance creativity
and innovation in the engineering field. Addressing these needs should begin in
educational settings (Fleisig et al. 2009). The encouragement of creativity is vital
in schools and curricula (Romeike 2006). However, education has the power to
cultivate or stifle creativity (Burleson 2005). Since creativity is enhanced by
confidence, self-development and positive mindset (Kang et al. 2011) educators
play a key role in the learning process.
1.2 Creativity in Engineering Education
3
Creativity should be a vital part of engineering education as well as an
important student outcome (Chiu and Salustri 2010). Engineering education is
paramount for providing the nation with graduates who are innovative, creative,
and critical in their thinking. These graduates are the human capital that will
contribute to sustainability of the global economy (Yasin et al. 2009).
Empirical studies of learning methods incorporating educational and cognitive
psychology have been successively implemented into engineering classes. Realworld applications, cooperative learning, active learning, and deductive and
inductive learning are important for developing creativity (Felder et al. 2000).
Reflection in action is vital to promote learning by doing (Schon 1983). Most
importantly, students also need to practice design skills before they are assessed.
Furthermore, experiential learning provides students opportunities to select
assignments and promotes deeper learning.
Creative education enables students to make innovative products while promoting integrated cooperation (Ito et al. 2003). Creativity may be expressed as
visualizing and manipulating images, greater openness to experience, and evaluating ideas (Hawlader and Poo 1989). Ito et al. (2003) suggest that imagination is
attained by touching the concrete. Sulzbach (2007) notes a recent graduate
emphasized teamwork, leadership, creative thinking, and problem solving: ‘‘no
grades attached. That is the engineering student I want to hire.’’
Creativity and innovation are vital in most levels of engineering education, yet
these topics are rarely expressed, investigated, or studied explicitly in coursework
(Forbes 2008) despite the importance of creativity in engineering. Without training
in the fundamentals of creativity, only 3 % of the population associate creativity
with engineering (Stouffer et al. 2004). Ishii and Miwa (2004) found idea generation, idea embodiment, and collaboration of creative activities as important
activities for learning. Therefore, projects with a keen personal interest may
increase steps toward the commercialization of invention (Ruiz 2004). Furthermore, Jordan and Pereira (2009) found that sketching was valuable for teaching
engineering design. We speculate that sketching is valuable toward the process of
creative engineering design.
There has been a greater emphasis on enhancing creativity in upcoming engineers due to creativity’s importance and value in the profession (Schmid 2006).
The Council of Graduate Schools (2007) reported that the need to improve creativity and innovation in graduate students is of national importance in the United
States. Engineering students recognize that creativity is important to learn.
Approximately 40 years ago, a survey found that 87 % of engineering students
agreed that creativity was a necessary skill for engineering (Gawain 1974). Furthermore, 77 % of engineering students stated that they would like to take a course
in creativity and creative problem solving (Gawain, 1974).
In previous conversations with engineering faculty, a faculty member commented that the engineering curriculum has not been changed for over 200 years
(B. Yantorno, personal communication, August, 24, 2003). Other engineering
students, at Temple University and Ohio State University, as well as engineering
students that have transferred from other universities have commented to me that
4
1 An Overview of the Relevance
they felt as though their classes only emphasized mathematics and not creativity.
Another engineering faculty member stated that programs are quick to add more
mathematics courses, yet reluctant to provide more creativity and innovation
classes (D. Cropley, personal communication, August, 5, 2012).
In August 2012, Ohio State University’s College of Engineering’s Engineering
Education Innovation Center (EEIC) first offered a student-initiated Seminar for
Promoting Creativity and Innovation course. This course is being offered once per
semester and is team-taught by faculty from various fields from all around the
university including radiology, business, and psychology. This course beginning is
an important ‘‘first step.’’ Several students from this class spoke to me about my
research and their interest to further updating the engineering curriculum beyond
this course in order to engage more students in pursuing and maintaining their
interests in engineering. Engineering and non-engineering majors at Ohio State
University now have the opportunity to take a course directly in creativity and
innovation as well as a course about the psychology of creativity. However, the
need to enhance the engineering curriculum with creativity and innovation courses
still exists.
Despite many approaches for teaching students about creativity, the engineering
education system does not adequately prepare students for real-life problems in the
professional world. One reason likely may be the education system’s in-the-box
thinking, which is not reflective of the real world (Tornkvist 1998). A second
reason may be the fact that the pressures of real life can never be fully present in
the classroom setting (Dallman et al. 2005). To address this, engineering educators
have attempted to bring the world of professional engineering into the classroom.
By introducing students to the more practical aspects of entrepreneurship and
engineering, students learn by doing. Such practice better prepares students for the
engineering problems they will encounter outside of the educational system in
real-world settings (Cropley and Cropley 1998). In particular, simulation exercises
via the learning-by-doing approach increase engineering skills and product
development (Badran 2007) .
To stimulate ‘‘out-of-the-box’’ thinking, engineering educational programs have
embraced interdisciplinary approaches in the design process. Interdisciplinary
approaches have been especially beneficial in the field of engineering. Collaboration addresses the limitations of one discipline working alone as this may
jeopardize design, construction, and use (Ghosh 1993).
At MIT, engineering students have been required to go outside of their discipline and learn new skills (Stouffer et al. 2004). MIT, however, is not the only
engineering program emphasizing interdisciplinary studies. Educational programs
in the College of Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Stevens Institute of Technology, the School of Mechanical Engineering at the
University of Leeds in England, and Arizona State University (Salter and Gann
2003) have also adopted an interdisciplinary approach.
At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the College of Engineering
incorporated different disciplines (the arts, humanities, and social sciences’
departments) into their curriculum (Salter and Gann 2003). The Stevens Institute
1.2 Creativity in Engineering Education
5
of Technology integrated engineering, architecture, computation, and product
design in order to teach practical design problems (Salter and Gann, 2003).
Oklahoma State University developed a course called Strategies for Creative
Problem Solving (Mann and High 2003) in effort to increase retention (High et al.
2005). In 2008, Villanova University launched a Creativity and Innovation course
that includes an exercise to act in different roles of thinking (problem finding,
solution finding, object finding) for different colored hats known as DeBono’s
‘‘Thinking Hats’’ as well as nonlinear problem-solving techniques.
The Seminar on Promoting Creativity and Innovation at Ohio State University,
intended for engineering and non-engineering majors, is designed to provide
students with the tools to refine their creative motivation as well as to encourage
multidisciplinary innovation. By enabling students to explore the concept of creativity through a variety of guest speaker experiences, the course may foster a
better appreciation for the processes of innovative design and prototyping. This
promotes an environment of student-sustained innovation.
Enhancements in the educational curriculum are still needed at many institutions. Updates should include active and reflective learning, hands-on exercises,
simulation exercises, and more courses addressing creativity and innovation.
1.3 Core Principles of Creative Engineering Design
Central themes specific to engineering creativity include originality (novelty)
(Shah et al. 2003; Thompson and Lordan 1999; Weisberg 1999) and usefulness
(applicability) (Larson et al. 1999; Shah et al. 2003; Thompson and Lordan 1999).
Engineers not only need to address esthetics like artists, but they also need to
solve problems, prevent potential problems, and address utility within the constraints and parameters that have been designated. These aspects of creativity have
been described as ‘‘functional creativity’’ (Cropley and Cropley 2005).
Functional creativity means that products designed by engineers typically serve
a functional and useful purpose, unlike most typical fine art. Creative products
emphasize novelty, resolution, elaboration, and synthesis (Cropley and Cropley
2005). Building on this, problem finding offers another avenue for increasing
creative production (Nickerson 1999). Problem finding is a skill often found in and
commonly associated with art, yet is also necessary in science and engineering. In
art, problem finding often involves identifying social problems such as Picasso
describing his dismay with the Spanish war in his artwork Guernica (Weisberg
1999).
Both problem finding and problem solving are relevant to an engineer’s creativity; however, these attributes have not been specifically measured traditionally
and in engineering creativity. Such attributes need to be assessed and further
developed by appropriate educational intervention activities (Cropley and Cropley
2005).
6
1 An Overview of the Relevance
These core principles were central to the development and theoretical framework of the Creative Engineering Design Assessment (CEDA) and are specifically
measured in the CEDA tool.
1.4 Assessments to Measure Creativity in Engineering
Design
To date, previous measures of engineering creativity have been limited. According
to the literature available, only a few measures were developed to assess creative
abilities in engineering design. These include the Owens Creativity Test (1960)
and the Purdue Creativity Test (PCT) (1960). The Owens Creativity Test (Owens
1960) was developed to assess mechanical engineering design. Test takers list
possible solutions to mechanical problems (divergent thinking). Reliability ranged
from .38 to .91, while validity ranged from .60 to .72. Validity was determined via
the testing of the engineers in mechanically related occupations. This assessment
tool is out of print and is no longer used.
The PCT was developed by Lawshe and Harris (1960) as an engineering personnel test, as a method for identifying creative engineers and their occupational
potential. Participants are instructed to list as many possible uses for one or two
shapes that are provided. The PCT has adequate reliability (.86–.95) and modest
validity (29–73 % for low scorers and high scorers, respectively). Validity was
determined by assessing professional engineers (process and product engineers)
working in industry. Participants are instructed to generate original and novel
possible uses for single objects or pairs of objects. Scoring is based on fluency
(number of uses) and flexibility (differing categories of uses). Although a reliable
and valid measure, limitations include little use in the field of engineering. This
assessment measures engineering creativity only by assessing fluency (number of
responses) and flexibility (categories of responses) and does not directly assess
originality. Both the Owens Creativity Test and the PCT are limited in that they
only measure divergent thinking, list of potential uses, but not convergent
thinking.
The CEDA offers a new method for assessing creative engineering design.
Participants are asked to sketch designs that incorporate one or several threedimensional objects, list potential users (people), as well as perform problem
finding (generate alternative uses for their design) and problem solving in response
to specific functional goals. Sketching is instrumental in designing problem
solving (Goldschmidt and Smolkov 2006) and results in creative solutions. Some
speculate that engineers think in pictures (Grandin 2006; B. Gustafson, personal
communication, May 25, 2010). The sketching aspect of the CEDA is engineering
specific and useful for spatial manipulations that are domain specific to
engineering.
1.4 Assessments to Measure Creativity in Engineering Design
7
Creativity in psychology has traditionally emphasized divergent thinking skills
(Torrance 1974; Guilford 1984). In the CEDA model, convergent science and
divergent practices are integrated as necessary functions for creative engineering
design. Schon (1983) reported that we have become aware of the importance of
actual practice that encompasses uncertainty, complexity, and uniqueness in
convergent science and divergent practices. Engineering often requires the need to
solve problems in these types of ambiguous situations. However, deriving alternative solutions through problem finding is essential. Both problem solving and
problem finding are important for creativity in engineering.
In order to be creative in engineering, solving problems is vital; however,
determining when there is a problem to solve may be even more important (Ghosh
1993). Creativity support tools have focused on generating possible solutions, but
not on identifying new problems (Baillie and Walker 1998). Yet, despite the
importance of problem finding (identifying current problems or recognizing
potential problems that may occur), the literature in engineering has traditionally
been meager. This is true for assessing both engineering creativity and problem
finding. To date, the CEDA is one of the only tools that assesses both problem
solving and problem finding (Charyton et al. 2008).
The CEDA builds on and improves upon features of the PCT (Lawshe an Harris
1960) as well as Guilford’s (1984) model of divergent thinking in that the questions are open-ended. The CEDA also assesses fluency (number of ideas), flexibility (categories of ideas, types of ideas, grouping of ideas), and originality (new
ideas, novelty). However, the CEDA differs from the PCT in that it was not
designed solely as a divergent thinking test. Furthermore, the CEDA was developed to specifically measure creativity unique to engineering design. Design is
crucial toward creativity and innovation for users and customers (Cockton 2008).
Engineering creativity involves both convergent thinking (generating one correct answer) and divergent thinking (generating multiple responses or answers)
(Charyton et al. 2008; Charyton and Merrill 2009). In the CEDA, students are
asked to generate up to two novel designs to fulfill a generalized goal. The
rationale for this limit is to work within the time constraints of the test and to elicit
higher-quality responses. Also, because there are five steps to each design, the
process requires more elements than just listing uses. In the CEDA, divergent
thinking is assessed by generating multiple solutions. Convergent thinking is
assessed by solving the problem posed. Constraint satisfaction is assessed by
complying with the parameters of the directions and also adding additional
materials and manipulating the objects as desired. Problem finding (identifying
other potential problems) is assessed by identifying other uses for the design.
Problem solving (finding a solution to a specific problem) is assessed by deriving a
novel design to solve the problem posed.
In engineering, creativity requires originality, adaptiveness, problem solving
(Weisberg 1986, 1999), and usefulness (Larson et al. 1999; Nickerson 1999).
Unlike previous measures, the revised CEDA also measures originality and
usefulness, which, to date, is a unique component when compared to other general
creativity and engineering creativity measures.
8
1 An Overview of the Relevance
References
Badran, I. (2007). Enhancing creativity and innovation in engineering education. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 573–585.
Baillie, C., & Walker, P. (1998). Fostering creative thinking to student engineers. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 35.
Burleson, W. (2005). Developing creativity, motivation, and self-actualization with learning
systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4–5), 436–451.
Charyton, C., & Merrill, J. A. (2009). Assessing general creativity and creative engineering
design in first year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(2), 145–156.
Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R. J., & Merrill, J. A. (2008). CEDA: A research instrument for creative
engineering design assessment. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3),
147–154.
Christiaans, H., & Venselaar, K. (2005). Creativity in design engineering and the role of
knowledge: Modelling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
15(3), 217–236.
Chiu, I., & Salustri, F. A. (2010). Evaluating design project creativity in engineering design
courses. CEEA2010: Inaugural Conference of the Canadian Engineering Education
Association (pp. 1–6),
Cockton, G. (2008). Designing worth: Connecting preferred means to desired ends. Interactions,
15(4), 54–57.
Council of Graduate Schools Advisory Committee on Graduate Education and American
Competitiveness. (2007). Graduate education: The backbone of American competitiveness
and innovation. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.
Cropley, D., & Cropley, A. (1998). Teaching engineering students to be creative-program and
outcomes. Australasian Association of Engineering Education: 10th Annual Conference.
Cropley, D. & Cropley, A. (2005). Engineering creativity: A systems concept of functional
creativity. In J.C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse
(pp. 169–185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dallman, S., Nguyen, L., Lamp, J., & Cybulski, J. (2005). Contextual factors which influence
creativity in requirements engineering. Proceedings of 13th European Conference on
Information Systems ECIS.
Deal, W. F. (2001). Imagineering: Designing robots imaginatively and creatively. The
Technology Teacher, 17–25.
Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., Stice, J. E., & Rugarcia, A. (2000). The future of engineering
education. II. Teaching methods that work. Chemical Engineering Education, 34(1), 26–39.
Ferguson, (1992). Engineering and the mind’s eye. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Fink, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1996). Creative cognition: Theory, research and
applications. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Fleisig, R., Mahler, H., & Mahalec, V. (2009). Engineering design in the creative age. 2009 ASEE
Annual Conference and Exposition, June 14–June 17 2009, Boeing.
Forbes, N. S. (2008). A module to foster engineering creativity: An interpolative design problem
and an extrapolative research project. CEE: Chemical Engineering Education, 42(4),
166–172.
Forging a Path for Today’s Engineers: More outsourcing, a more diversified workload and more
money for engineers in 2007. (2007). Design News, July 16, 2007, 62. http://www.designnews.
com/document.asp?doc_id=217539&dfpPParams=aid_217539&dfpLayout=article.
Gawain, T. H. (1974). Some reflections on education for creativity in engineering. IEEE
Transactions on Education, 17(4), 189–192.
References
9
Ghosh, S. (1993). An exercise in inducing creativity in undergraduate engineering students
through challenging examinations and open-ended design problems. IEEE Transactions on
Education, 36(1), 113–119.
Goldschmidt, G., & Smolkov, M. (2006). Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design
problem solving performance. Design Studies, 27, 549–569.
Grandin, T. (2006). Thinking in pictures: My life with autism. New York: Random House, Inc.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
Guilford, J. P. (1984). Varieties of divergent thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 19, 1–10.
Hawlader, M. N. A., & Poo, A. N. (1989). Development of creative and innovative talents of
students. The International Journal of Applied Engineering Education, 5(3), 331–339.
High, K.A., Mann, C & Lawrence, B. (2005). Problem solving and creativity experiences for
freshmen engineers. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society of Engineering Education
Annual Conference & Exposition.
Ishii, N., & Miwa, K. (2004). Creativity education based on participants’ reflective thinking on
their creative processes. Transactions of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, 19(2),
126–135.
Ishii, N., & Miwa, K. (2005). Supporting reflective practice in creativity education. Proceedings
of the 5th conference on Creativity & Cognition, London, England.
Ito, H., Fujimoto, H., Sakuramoto, I., Ishida, K., Kaneshige, A., Kadowaki, S., & Murakami, H.
(2003). Practical education for students to enable to make a product creatively. Proceedings of
the International Conference on Agile Manufacturing, Advances in Agile Manufacturing,
ICAM 2003 (pp. 645–650), December 4–6, 2003.
Jones, M. (1995). Company succeeds thanks to the creativity of its engineers. Design News, 59.
Jordan, S., & Pereira, N. (2009). Rube goldbergineering: Lessons in teaching engineering design
to future engineers. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 14–17 2009, BOEING.
Kang, A., Chung, S., & Ku, J. (2011). A study on the effective lesson plan of creative engineering
design education for the creativity improvement of the students of engineering college. 3rd
International Mega-Conference on Future-Generation Information Technology, FGIT 2011,
in Conjunction with GDC 2011 (pp. 108–119), December 8–10 2011, 7105 LNCS.
Larson, M. C., Thomas, B., & Leviness, P. O. (1999). Assessing the creativity of engineers.
Design Engineering Division: Successes in Engineering Design Education, Design Engineering, 102, 1–6.
Lawshe, C. H. & Harris, D. H. (1960). Manual of instructions to accompany Purdue Creativity
Test forms G and H. Princeton: Educational Testing Services.
Mahboub, K. C., Portillo, M. B., Liu, Y., & Chadranratna, S. (2004). Measuring and enhancing
creativity. European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(3), 429–436.
Mann, C. & High, K.A. (2003). A pilot study for creativity in a freshman introduction to
engineering course. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society of Engineering Education
Annual Conference & Exposition.
McDougnel, W. & Braungart, N. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things.
New York: North Point Press.
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity
(pp. 392–430). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Owens, W. A. (1960). The Owens creativity test. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
Redelinghuys, C. (2001). Proposed measures for invention gain an engineering design. Journal of
Engineering Design, 11, 245–263.
Romeike, R. (2006). Creative students—what can we learn from them for teaching computer
science? 6th Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research—Koli Calling 2006
(Vol. 276, pp. 149–150), February 1, 2006.
Ruiz, F. (2004). Learning engineering as art: An invention center. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 20(5), 809–819.
Salter, A., & Gann, D. (2003). Sources of ideas for innovation in engineering design. Research
Policy, 32(8), 1309–1324.
10
1 An Overview of the Relevance
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
Schmid, K. (2006). A study on creativity in requirements engineering. Softwaretechnik-Trends,
26(1), 1–2.
Shah, J. J., Smith, S. M., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation
effectiveness. Design Studies, 24(2), 111–134.
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental and social aspects.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 151–158.
Smith, E. M. (2002). Teamwork with the next generation: A playful take on robots, draws
students to technology, and gives engineers unexpected insights into their work and
themselves. Mechanical Engineering, 46–49.
Stokes, P. D. (2005). Creativity from constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. NewYork:
Springer.
Stouffer, W., Russell, J. S., & Oliva, M. G. (2004). Making the strange familiar: Creativity and
the future of engineering education. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.
Sulzbach, C. (2007). Enhancing engineering education? Concrete canoe competition., 114th
Annual ASEE Conference and Exposition 2007, June 24–27, 2007.
Thompson, G., & Lordan, M. (1999). A review of creativity principles applied to engineering
design. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers—Part E—Journal of Process
Mechanical Engineering, 213(1), 17–31.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Lexington: Personnel Press/Ginn and
Co./Xerox Education Co.
Tornkvist, S. (1998). Creativity: Can it be taught? The case of engineering. European Journal of
Engineering Education, 23(1), 5–12.
Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Waks, S., & Merdler, M. (2003). Creative thinking of practical engineering students during a
design project. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(1), 101–121.
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R.J. Sternberg
(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 226–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weisberg, R. W. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and
Company.
Yasin, R. M., Mustapha, R., & Zaharim, A. (2009). Promoting creativity through problem
oriented project based learning in engineering education at Malaysian polytechnics: Issues
and challenges. 8th WSEAS International Conference on Education and Educational
Technology, EDU ‘09 (pp. 253–258), October 17–19, 2009.
Chapter 2
The CEDA Manual and Directions
2.1 Introduction
This manual includes directions for administering and scoring the Creative
Engineering Design Assessment (CEDA). As previously suggested (Charyton and
Merrill 2009) the CEDA is appropriate for use in high school through graduate
school and could be easily used by engineering educators (Charyton et al. 2011).
Further research is needed to see whether this tool is appropriate for engineers in
industry. While future research will include this tool in industry, the CEDA has
already been demonstrated to be related with another measure that was already
normed on professional engineers in industry. Previous research has also shown
that the CEDA is moderately related to other engineering creativity measures
including the Purdue Creativity Test and the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test–
Rotations. The Purdue Creativity Test was normed on product, process and project
engineers working in industry with an average of 12 years experience from various
fields of engineering including mechanical engineering. After establishing reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, the CEDA tool is appropriate for dissemination.
The following resources are recommended in order to understand the terminology, theoretical framework and measuring components within the CEDA.
2.2 Recommended Resources
Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R.J., Merrill, J.A., *Clifton, W. & *Dedios, S. (October,
2011). Assessing engineering creativity and creative engineering design in firstyear engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 100, 778–799.
*indicates students supervised by Dr. Christine Charyton
Link to pdf of article and You Tube Video: http://www.jee.org/2011/October/08
C. Charyton, Creative Engineering Design Assessment,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-5379-5_2, Ó The Author(s) 2014
11
12
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
Charyton and Merrill (2009). (also cited in Encyclopedia Britannica online
retrieved November 18, 2009 from http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/
18/39246485/Assessing-General-Creativity-and-Creative-Engineering-Design-inFirst-Year-Engineering-Students).
Charyton et al. (2008)
Charyton and Snelbecker (2007)
Charyton (2005)
Charyton (2008)
2.3 Directions for Administering the CEDA
Before administering the Creative Engineering Design Assessment (CEDA), the
administrator should have a copy of the manual, read the materials and become
familiar with all aspects of administration.
Participants are provided the following instructions:
At the top of the following, each page is a set of 2, 3, or 4 three-dimensional
figures. Please use one or more of these figures to generate two original designs
that will accomplish the general goal written below them. You can imagine that
the figures are made of any material you wish and can be any size that you wish for
each design. They can be solid or hollow and can be manipulated in any manner
you wish. You may combine the figures on each page and may draw additional
elements as required by your design. However, each figure can only be used once
per design. On each page, be sure to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Sketch your designs.
Label each design (provide a brief description—what is your design?).
Describe your materials.
Identify additional problems that your design may solve.
Identify the users (specific persons) of each design.
Total time for this assessment is 30 min for 3 pages, or about 10 min per page.
You may use your time as you see fit. Two designs should be created per page.
Additionally, at least one response should be indicated for each of the boxes below
your sketch for each design. You may use a pen or pencil, whichever you prefer.
Instruct the participants to print their name or identifying number on the face
sheet of the assessment. There are a total of three problems for the revised version
of the CEDA. Use for the CEDA requires responses that are created and sketched
through a design process that is unique to the individual. The total working time on
the CEDA is approximately 30 min with 10 min allotted per problem as described
in the directions above. Participants should be instructed to complete the CEDA in
this manner with time constraints; however, administration may take place outside
of the administration environment. Participants are instructed to generate two
designs for each problem.
2.4 Theoretical Framework of the CEDA
13
2.4 Theoretical Framework of the CEDA
Figure 2.1 describes how each item on the CEDA addresses these theoretical
constructs. Divergent thinking is assessed by generating multiple solutions to the
problem. Convergent thinking is assessed by solving the problem posed by creating at least three designs for three problems. Constraint satisfaction is assessed
by complying with the parameters of the directions and also adding additional
materials and manipulating the objects as desired. If items are duplicated, the
design is disqualified (DQ). Designs are also DQ if they are not appropriate
responses to solve the problem. Problem finding is assessed by identifying other
uses for the design. This is the most difficult aspect of the entire problem. Problem
solving is assessed by deriving a novel design to solve the problem posed. This
means solving the problem appropriately yet in a novel manner.
A readability and comprehension analysis was conducted on the CEDA to
determine the appropriateness for college students. The analysis measure known as
the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) (McLaughlin, 1969), an online
program, was used to assess the reading and comprehension level of the CEDA,
available at:
http://www.harrymclaughlin.com/SMOG.htm
The SMOG formula utilizes established readability formulas that match scores
with the actual education level. The online SMOG calculator uses McLaughlin’s
formula yielding a 0.985 correlation with the grade level of readers having 100 %
comprehension of the tested materials.
The SMOG is designed for evaluating the reading level of materials that can be
read independently by a person without assistance from a teacher or instructor
(Richardson and Morgan 1990). Readability is recommended at the 6–8th grade
level for educational materials for the general public. The SMOG Grade for the
CEDA was 8.81, being the 8th grade level, equivalent to a junior high school,
which relates to a newspaper reading comprehension level. Therefore, the CEDA
CEDA
CREATIVE PROCESS
Divergent Thinking
2 to 4 different solutions to each problem
Convergent Thinking
One solution to the given problem
Constraint Satisfaction
Shapes used and materials added within the
parameters of design
Problem Finding
Identifying other uses for their design
Problem Solving
Solving the given problem with a novel or
novel designs
Fig. 2.1 Creative engineering design assessment meta-cognitive processes measured
14
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
would also be appropriate and useful for precollege students at the junior high and
high school levels.
2.5 Components of Scoring
Figure 2.2 depicts the correlations among the components of the CEDA. The
strong correlation (r = 0.86) between Fluency (number of ideas) and Flexibility
(types of categories of ideas) reflects that both measure divergent thinking in terms
of number of designs, although Flexibility uses more categorical analysis. Given
this greater abstraction for Flexibility, it is perhaps not surprising that its correlations with Originality (novelty of ideas) (r = 0.58) and Usefulness (practicality
for potential or current uses as well as number of potential uses) (r = 0.46) are
numerically higher than those for Fluency (r = 0.46 and r = 0.39, respectively).
The relatively high correlation between Originality (new ideas) and Usefulness
(practicality) (r = 0.65) is perhaps surprising given that these are distinct constructs that are both central to engineering creativity. However, their relationship
may be higher in an engineering population, which values both Originality and
Usefulness more than other fields or domains.
The inter-rater reliabilities between the four engineering judges and the one
psychology judge were calculated for each of the components, except Fluency,
which simply consisted of a count of items. The reliabilities for Flexibility (r = 0.83,
p \ 0.01), Originality (r = 0.59, p \ 0.01), and Usefulness (r = 0.46, p \ 0.01)
were lower than the inter-rater reliability of the overall CEDA scores without
Usefulness (r = 0.92, p \ 0.01) and with Usefulness included (r = 0.81, p \ 0.01).
Fluency
.39
.58
.46
.46
Originality
Flexibility
. 86
.65
Usefulness
Fig. 2.2 Correlations among the components assessed within the Creative Engineering Design
Assessment (CEDA). Fluency is the amount of responses. Flexibility is the amount of types or
categories of the responses per problem. Originality is novelty or new ideas that are assessed
based on a rubric consisting of descriptors and numbers on a scale from 0 to 10. Usefulness is the
practicality of the design for current and/or potential future uses on a Likert’s scale from 0 to 4
2.5 Components of Scoring
15
The magnitude of the reliabilities indicates the difficulty of judging Originality and
Usefulness. The higher reliability of the overall CEDA scores is based on a combination of these component measures. The CEDA is comparable with the Purdue
Creativity Test (PCT) on Fluency and Flexibility.
We also assessed inter-rater reliability for 60 randomly selected PCT’s, 30 from
Fundamentals of Engineering I, and 30 from Fundamental of Engineering II.
Reliability was comparable with the CEDA for Flexibility (r = 0.89, p \ 0.01)
and overall PCT scores (r = 0.93, p \ 0.01) in our study. However, the CEDA
contributes to existing measures by assessing essential components of creative
engineering design, such as Originality and Usefulness, which are core features of
creativity, that are especially important in engineering yet have not been previously directly measured (Charyton et al. 2011).
2.6 Properties of the CEDA
2.6.1 Reliability
Previous correlations among the CEDA scores of two judges were conducted to
identify their relationships with each other and establish reliability. Judges were in
agreement (r = 0.98) with their overall scoring. Inter-rater reliability was high for
Flexibility (r = 0.90 and r = 0.98) and Originality (r = 0.80 and r = 0.85)
indicating consistency in both test and retest measures, respectively (Charyton and
Merrill 2009).
The CEDA was consistent for test and retest reliability (r = 0.56) like the other
general creativity measures such as the Creative Personality Scale (CPS)
(r = 0.57), Creative Temperament Scale (CT) (r = 0.51), and Cognitive Risk
Tolerance Scale (CRT) (r = 0.43), (p \ 0.01) for all comparisons (Charyton and
Merrill 2009).
Reliability was important to re-establish since we modified the CEDA to assess
Usefulness in addition to Originality. The four engineering judges were in
agreement with the psychology judge at the following levels (r = 0.95),
(r = 0.88), (r = 0.91), and (r = 0.93), p \ 0.01 for all comparisons (Charyton
et al. 2011).
2.6.2 Validity
2.6.2.1 Discriminant Validity
In a previous study, Charyton and Snelbecker (2007) found that a music improvisation creativity measure was not related to general creativity constructs
16
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
(CPS, CT, and CRT), yet the Purdue Creativity Test (PCT) demonstrated a modest
relationship with these general creativity measures. The CEDA demonstrated
discriminant validity from these other general creativity measures (Charyton et al.
2008), like the domain specific music improvisation creativity measure had in
previous studies (Charyton 2005; Charyton 2008; Charyton and Snelbecker 2007).
The general creativity measures are described as follows:
CPS: Creative Personality Scale. The CPS of the Adjective Checklist (ACL)
(Gough 1979) was previously administered to assess creativity attributes.
According to Gough (1979), aesthetic dispositions are related to creative potential.
This instrument was designed as an appraisal of the self. This test was selected
because it is highly regarded, reliable and widely used as a general creativity test
(Plucker and Renzulli 1999; Oldham and Cummings 1996).
CT: Creative Temperament Scale. The CT (Gough 1992) was adapted from the
California Psychological Inventory (CPI), which was designed to assess personality characteristics and predict what people will say and do in specific contexts.
Gough (1992) suggested that this measure is capable of forecasting creative
attainment in various domains, both within and outside of psychology. Any
domain requires skills specific to the domain, yet this measure assesses general
personality qualities cutting across disciplines. The Creative Temperament Scale is
one of the special purpose scales of the CPI.
CRT: Cognitive Risk Tolerance Survey. The CRT (Snelbecker et al. 2001)
consists of 35 self-report items to assess an individual’s ability to formulate and
express one’s ideas despite potential opposition. Responses are on a Likert’s Scale
ranging from 0 (Very Strongly Disagree) to 9 (Very Strongly Agree). Higher scores
indicate higher levels of cognitive risk tolerance. The Cognitive Risk Tolerance
Survey was developed as an extension of an earlier risk tolerance model developed
by Snelbecker and colleagues (Roszkowski et al. 1989; Snelbecker et al. 1990).
Charyton and Snelbecker (2007) found the CRT measure was moderately correlated
with the CPS (r = .36, p \ 0.01) and CT (r = .34, p \ 0.01), which were moderately related to each other (r = .35, p \ 0.01). CRT may be a component of general
creativity that is moderately related to, yet different from other general creativity
measures. This measure was selected as a distinct component of general creativity.
Discriminant validity for the CEDA was established with general creativity
measures, respectively (r = -0.01 (CPS); r = -0.13 (CT), r = -0.19 (CRT),
p [ 0.05) suggesting that the CEDA is domain specific to engineering.
2.6.2.2 Convergent Validity
Correlations between the CEDA and other engineering creativity and spatial
measures were conducted to establish convergent validity. The CEDA was moderately correlated with the PCT (r = 0.39, p \ 0.01) and slightly correlated with
the Purdue Visualization Spatial Test–Rotations (PVST–R) (r = 0.19, p \ 0.05).
The CEDA, including usefulness in the formula of assessment, demonstrated
similar results. The CEDA with usefulness was moderately correlated with the
2.6 Properties of the CEDA
17
PCT (r = 0.31, p \ 0.01) and slightly correlated with the PVST–R (r = 0.21,
p \ 0.05). These findings suggest that creative engineering design overlaps with
spatial skills. This finding is logical since sketching requires spatial skills. Furthermore, in the CEDA, participants are instructed to manipulate the objects in any
manner they desire without replication. In the PVST–R, participants are instructed
to rotate the objects.
The relationship among the variables is consistent with the previous (or initial)
CEDA scoring formula and the revised CEDA scoring formula. Figure 2.3 depicts
the initial CEDA scoring and the revised CEDA scoring (new CEDA scoring in
parentheses) that includes Usefulness. In this study, the other domain-specific
engineering specific measures are moderately related to the CEDA, demonstrating
that the CEDA is more like other engineering creativity measures (PCT) and
engineering spatial measures (PVST–R). Both are domain specific to engineering.
This contrasts with previous findings demonstrating that the CEDA was not like
other general creativity measures. Thus, by directly assessing Originality and
Usefulness, the CEDA assesses creativity as a well-accepted standardized definition that is also domain specific to engineering (Charyton et al. 2011).
The Purdue Spatial Visualization Test-Rotations is the most common test of
engineering students’ spatial visualization (Carter et al. 1987). The PSVT–R
consists of 30 unfamiliar objects that the observer mentally rotates and has been
used for first-year engineering programs (Bodner and Guay 1997). The PSVT–R
was devised to test spatial development while minimizing analytic processing
(Guay 1980). Using lines and symbols to represent thoughts and ideas of engineers
can be more effective than purely verbal descriptions (Scribner and Anderson,
2005). The PSVT–R correlated significantly with participants’ scores on spatial
tasks (Kovac 1989). Males have previously performed better on PSVT questions
than females (Guay 1978; Kinsey et al. 2007); however, the two genders scored
equally on self-efficacy (belief in their own capabilities in order to accomplish the
task), while upperclass students scored higher on both (Kinsey et al. 2007). The
PSVT–R is often administered to freshmen with a course objective of assessing the
spatial skills needed to succeed in subsequent engineering design graphics courses
(Sorby and Baartmans 1996).
The PSVT–R has high construct validity for spatial visualization ability
(Branoff 2000; Guay 1980). Guay reports internal consistency (reliability) (Kuder
Richardson r = 0.87, 0.89 and 0.92) from 217 university students, 51 skilled
machinists, and 101 university students, respectively (Guay 1980). Other studies
also report high reliability (Kuder Richardson r = 0.80 or higher) (Branoff 2000;
Scribner and Anderson 2005). Based on these analyses, most researchers agree that
the PSVT is a good measure of spatial ability (Branoff 2000; Yue and Chen 2001).
2.6.3 Conceptualization
See Fig. 2.3.
18
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
Domain Specific
Engineering Measures
General Creativity
Measures
Convergent Validity
(2011 study)
Discriminant Validity
(2008 & 2009 studies)
Creative
Personality
Scale
(CPS)
Creative
Temperament
Scale
(CT)
0.11
0.03
0.39**
(0.31**)
CEDA
Fluency+
Flexibility+
2*Originality
(+2*Usefulness)
0.19*
(0.21*)
-0.02
(-0.03)
Cognitive
Risk
Tolerance
Scale
(CRT)
-0.07
Purdue
Creativity
Test
(PCT)
Purdue
Visualization
Spatial Test
Rotations
(PVST-R)
Systems Test
Rollercoaster
Functionality
Fig. 2.3 Conceptualization of the relationship of the Creative Engineering Design Assessment
(CEDA) with general creativity measures (2008; 2009) and domain-specific engineering
measures (2011). The top left portion of the figure is based on previous research (Charyton et al.
2008), and the top right portion is based on current data in this study with the original and revised
CEDA scoring formula. The revised scoring CEDA formula is in parentheses. The correlations
for the revised formula with usefulness (2* usefulness added to the original CEDA formula)
illustrates similar findings with the new scoring of the revised CEDA compared with the previous
scoring method without usefulness. ** indicates statistical significance at the 0.01 level. *
indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level
2.7 How to Score the CEDA
See Table 2.1
2.8 Directions
For Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and Usefulness, each question of the CEDA
problems is described in regard to each CEDA question and revised CEDA scoring
sheet. There are five parts for Fluency and Flexibility, eleven parts for Originality
and five parts for Usefulness. The scoring sheet terms are provided within
parentheses for scoring dimensions of the CEDA (Fluency: number, total designs,
descriptions, materials, problems solved, and users); (Flexibility: Types or Classifications, total designs, descriptions, materials, problems solved, and users);
2.8 Directions
Table 2.1 The Scoring Sheet
Revised CEDA scoring sheet
Fluency (number)
Fluency (total designs):
Fluency (descriptions provided)
Fluency (materials)
Fluency (problems solved)
Fluency (users)
Judges begin here:
Flexibility (types or classifications)
Flexibility (Total designs)
Flexibility (descriptions)
Flexibility (materials)
Flexibility (Problems solved)
Flexibility (Users)
Uniqueness/originality
(assign 3 numbers per problem: Design
1,2 & Overall in sequential order)
(1–10) per design
(0 dull
1 commonplace,
2 somewhat interesting,
3 interesting
4 very interesting
5 insightful
6 unique and different
7 exceptional
8 innovative
9 valuable and beneficial to the field
10 genius)
Usefulness
(assign 3 numbers per problem: Design
1, 2 & Overall in sequential order)
0 not useful
1 somewhat useful
2 moderately useful
3 very useful
4 indispensable
Definition of usefulness: practicality of a
design based on reliability, number of
purposes, and number of occasions for
application. The usefulness of a design
can involve present uses and new uses
in the future.
19
Participant
Number
Judge’s name:
Problem 1
Problem 2
Problem 3
D1 D2 Overall
D1 D2 Overall D1 D2 Overall
D1 D2 Overall
D1 D2 Overall D1 D2 Overall
20
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
Uniqueness/Originality (per design and overall) (0 dull, 1 commonplace, 2
somewhat interesting, 3 interesting, 4 very interesting, 5 insightful, 6 unique and
different, 7 exceptional, 8 innovative, 9 valuable and beneficial to the field, 10
genius); Usefulness (per design and overall): practicality of a design based on
reliability, number of purposes, and occasions for application.
The Usefulness of a design can involve present uses and new uses in the future
(0 not useful, 1 somewhat useful, 2 moderately useful, 3 very useful, 4 indispensable). Usefulness would also account for sustainability. Greater sustainability
would increase potential uses, purposes, and occasions for application.
2.8.1 Fluency
Participants taking the CEDA tool will most likely have two designs completed per
problem. Designs may be similar or different from each other. To begin scoring the
CEDA designs, all items answered should be counted. Fluency is the total number
of designs. Fluency is counted for the Sketch, Description, Materials, Additional
Problems Solved, and Users.
Fluency (Number) is a straightforward count for sketches (Total Designs) and
description (Descriptions Provided). However, many participants select multiple
materials (Materials) to create their designs. Therefore, we recommend checking
carefully and underlining each material. For additional problems solved (Problems
Solved), there may be more than one additional problem solved stated, so a
thorough check is important to identify multiple responses. Last, many participants
also select multiple users for each design and problem; therefore, users (Users)
should also be thoroughly checked for multiple responses. Test administrators may
also want to underline each User to identify multiple users.
However, when calculating Fluency for Users, if a participant writes everyone,
anyone, everybody, and other related words the design should only receive a
score of one, if there are no other responses. If other responses are also indicated,
these vague responses would count as zero toward Fluency.
After the Fluency is calculated for all participants’ design problems, begin
scoring Flexibility, Originality, and Usefulness.
2.8.2 Flexibility
Flexibility is the number of categories, types, or classifications of responses. Are
responses the same or different? If responses are the same, fewer points are
assigned. For example, if we were to have participants’ list categories of foods and
if one participant responded as orange, apple, and banana, then they will only
receive one point for flexibility since the items indicate only one type of category
(fruit). If responses are different from each other, more points are assigned, for
2.8 Directions
21
example, if another participant said steak, apple, and bread, that would count as
three points for each different category (meat, fruit, and bread).
To score Flexibility (Total Designs) for the sketches look at both Designs. Are
they the same? Or different? For example, in designs, which produce sound, are
the cylinder and sphere in the same combination together (visually)? If they are in
the same combination, they would receive one point for Flexibility. If the combinations are different, or if each design uses a different shape, then the problem
would receive two points for Flexibility (different categories).
To score Flexibility (Descriptions) for the each description, determine, are they
the same or different? Different descriptions receive two points, while the same
description would receive one point (often times there are multiple descriptions).
To score Flexibility (Materials), be sure to check each for repetition or same
idea. It is important to note that when participants have duplicate answers such as
metal, metal speaker, and rubber, the problem would receive three points for
Fluency, but only two points for Flexibility.
To score Flexibility (Problems Solved) for additional problems solved look for
similar or different answers. For each different response, an additional point is
given. Participants would often receive two points or more depending on the
amount of responses. However, similar ideas would receive one point.
To score Flexibility (Users), check for duplication and categories of responses.
Many participants have multiple responses. For example, if the participant
responded children and kids, the problem would receive one point for Flexibility.
If a participant responded children, astronauts, and business people, they would
receive three points for both Fluency and Flexibility. However, if a participant
responded children, kids, and astronauts, they would only receive two points for
Flexibility while receiving three points for Fluency. Vague responses such as
‘‘everyone,’’ ‘‘anyone,’’ or ‘‘everybody’’ would receive only one point, if these are
the only responses. If a participant responded children, kids, anyone, they would
only receive one point for Flexibility. This is because children and kids are the
same. Also, anyone does not gain any points. Anyone is too general and not
thoughtful in the design process.
2.8.3 Originality
Before scoring Originality, the scorer or judge should read the scoring rubric for
Originality. Originality is defined as novelty, new ideas, or unique ideas.
To score Originality (Uniqueness), rate each design on the scale from 0 to 10.
Scorers or judges should think of a word on your own that describes each design
and then look on the rubric list to find the word and assign that number to the
design. Each problem has two designs. Each design should be assessed separately
(D1, D2). Then, an overall evaluation of the entire problem should be rated. The
Originality score for the entire problem (Overall) will be the score that is analyzed
and becomes the overall Originality score for the problem. Although each design
22
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
score can be inputted and analyzed, we recommend using the overall problem
score. It is also important to note that this process of scoring each design is
pertinent toward making an assessment of the overall Originality score per
problem.
2.8.4 Usefulness
The definition of Usefulness is the practicality of the design, based on reliability,
number of purposes, and number of occasions for application. The usefulness can
involve present uses and new uses in the future.
To score Usefulness, rate each design on a scale from 0 to 4. This is a Likert’s
Scale where 0 is not useful, and 4 is indispensable. Like Originality, use a word
that describes the usefulness of each design. It is important to keep in mind that
usefulness incorporates the number of uses, present uses, and future uses. Be sure
to rate Usefulness for each design (D1, D2) and then rate the overall usefulness per
problem (Overall). Although each design score can be inputted and analyzed, it is
recommended to use the overall problem score. It is also important to note that this
process of scoring each design is pertinent toward making an assessment of the
overall Usefulness score per problem.
It is important to note that if a participant does not follow the directions and
duplicates a shape, then their design is disqualified and should not be assessed.
However, participants can manipulate the shape or shapes and add materials as
they see fit. If duplication appears to have been manipulated on a smaller scale,
then the design can still be counted. For example, if five cylinders appear to be the
same size and have been duplicated, then the design is disqualified (DQ). However, if the cylinder was manipulated into five smaller cylinders that appear to have
been generated and manipulated from one cylinder, then the design can still be
scored since the participant was successfully following the directions by not
replicating objects. DQ can be assigned to each design where the directions were
not followed properly, the response is not appropriate for the problem and when
one or more objects have been duplicated. Remember items can be manipulated,
but not duplicated. This is a judgment call by the rater. If there are two designs and
one design is disqualified, the overall score would be the same as the design that
was suitable for scoring. There are cases where both designs were disqualified. DQ
should be notated when reporting results.
2.9 Sample Design Problem
See Table 2.2
2.9 Sample Design Problem
Table 2.2 Sample Design Problem
23
24
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
2.10 Sample Scored Problem
See Table 2.3
2.11 Directions for Printing
Print the CEDA in black and white ink and photocopy for administration. Scoring
Sheets should also be used to score all CEDAs and be printed in black and white
hardcopy also. We recommend using hardcopies versus electronic copies for both
the CEDA and Scoring Sheets.
2.11
Directions for Printing
Table 2.3 Sample Scored Problem
Revised CEDA Scoring Sheet
Fluency (number)
Fluency (Total Designs):
Fluency (descriptions provided)
Fluency (materials)
Fluency (Problems solved)
Fluency (Users)
Judges begin here:
Flexibility (types or classifications)
Flexibility (total designs)
Flexibility (descriptions)
Flexibility (materials)
Flexibility (problems solved)
Flexibility (users)
Uniqueness/originality
(assign 3 numbers per problem:
Design 1,2 & Overall in
sequential order)
(1–10) per design
(0 dull
1 commonplace,
2 somewhat interesting,
3 interesting
4 very interesting
5 insightful
6 unique and different
7 exceptional
8 innovative
9 valuable and beneficial to the field
10 genius)
Usefulness
(assign 3 number per problem:
Design 1, 2 & Overall
in sequential order)
25
Participant
Number
Problem 1
2
2
7
4
3
Judge’s name:
Problem 2
Problem 3
2
2
6
4
3
D1 D2 Overall
D1 D2 Overall D1 D2 Overall
4
5
5
D1 D2 Overall
0 not useful
1 somewhat useful
2 moderately useful
2
3 very useful
3
3
4 indispensable
Definition of usefulness: practicality of a
design based on reliability, number of
purposes, and number of occasions for
application. The usefulness of a design
can involve present uses and new uses in
the future
D1 D2 Overall D1 D2 Overall
26
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
2.12 CEDA
Before beginning, please provide the following 3 pieces of identification:
Course number _______ Semester/Quarter:______
Assigned Student Number ________________
CEDA: Creative Engineering Design Assessment.
At the top of the following, each page is a set of 2, 3, or 4 three-dimensional
figures. Please use one or more of these figures to generate two original designs
that will accomplish the general goal written below them. You can imagine that
the figures are made of any material you wish and can be any size that you wish for
each design. They can be solid or hollow and can be manipulated in any manner
you wish. You may combine the figures on each page and may draw additional
elements as required by your design. However, each figure can only be used once
per design. On each page, be sure to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Sketch your designs.
Label each design (provide a brief description—what is your design?).
Describe your materials.
Identify additional problems that your design may solve.
Identify the users (specific persons) of each design.
Total time for this assessment is 30 min for 3 pages, or about 10 min per page.
You may use your time as you see fit. Two designs should be created per page.
Additionally, at least one response should be indicated for each of the boxes below
your sketch for each design. You may use a pen or pencil, whichever you prefer.
Copyright Ó 2006, 2007 by Charyton, Jagacinski, & Merrill, Blacklick, OH. All
rights reserved.
2.12
CEDA
27
Designs that produce sound.
Sketch
Description
(What is
your
design?)
Describe the
Materials
Additional
Problems
solved
Users
(persons that
could use
your design)
1
2
28
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
Designs that facilitate communication.
Sketch
Description
(What is
your
design?)
Describe
the
Materials
Additional
Problems
solved
Users
(persons
that could
use your
design)
1
2
2.12
CEDA
29
Designs that can travel.
Sketch
Description
(What is
your
design?)
Describe
the
Materials
Additional
Problems
solved
Users
(persons
that could
use your
design)
1
2
30
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
2.13 The CEDA Translated into Other Languages
2.13.1 Ukrainian
CEDA: Creative Engineering Design Assessment (Ukrainian version)
2.13
The CEDA Translated into Other Languages
31
32
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
2.13
The CEDA Translated into Other Languages
33
34
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
2.13.2 Spanish
Previo a comenzar, favor de proveer las 3 próximas piezas de identificación:
Numero de curso__________Letra de Sección__________Numero de Estudiante Asignado__________
ECDI: Examinación de Creatividad de Diseño en Ingeniería.
A lo alto de cada una de las siguientes, cada pagina es un conjunto de 2, 3, o 4 figuras de tres-dimensión. Favor de
utilizar una o mas de estas figuras, previamente mencionadas, para generar dos diseños originales con el fin de
lograr la meta escrita bajo las mismas. Las figuras pueden tomar cualquier tamaño y ser compuestas del material
que desees en cada diseño; pueden ser solidas o huecas y ser manipuladas en cualquier manera que desees. Puedes
combinar las figuras en cada pagina y dibujar elementos adicional como sean necesarios por tu diseño. Sin
embargo, cada figura tiene el limite de ser utilizada solamente una vez, por diseño. En cada pagina, asegúrate de:
1.
Dibujar tus diseños.
2.
Proveer escritura de etiqueta (dar una descripción breve
¿que es tu diseño?)
3.
Describir tus materiales.
4.
Identificar problemas adicionales que tu diseño puede resolver.
5.
Identificar los usuarios (personas especificas) de cada diseño.
Tiempo total para este examen es 30 minutos para 3 paginas, o aproximadamente 10 minutos por pagina. Puedes
utilizar el tiempo como veas necesario. Dos diseños necesitan ser creados por pagina. Además, es necesario indicar
por lo menos una respuesta en cada una de las cajas bajo tu dibujo, por cada diseño. Puedes escoger entre lápiz o
lapicero, como prefieras.
Copyright © 2006, 2007 by Charyton, Jagacinski, & Merrill,
Blacklick, OH. Todos los derechos reservados.
2.13
The CEDA Translated into Other Languages
35
Diseños que producen sonido.
Dibujo
Descripción
(¿Qué es tu
diseño?)
Describe tus
Materiales
Problemas
adicionales
resueltos
Usuarios (que
pueden sacar
provecho del
diseño)
1
2
36
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
Diseños que faciliten la comunicación.
Dibujo
Descripción
(¿Qué es tu
diseño?)
Describe tus
Materiales
Problemas
adicionales
resueltos
Usuarios (que
pueden sacar
provecho del
diseño)
1
2
2.13
The CEDA Translated into Other Languages
37
Diseños que pueden viajar.
Dibujo
Descripción
(¿Qué es tu
diseño?)
Describe tus
Materiales
Problemas
adicionales
resueltos
Usuarios (que
pueden sacar
provecho del
diseño)
1
2
38
2.13.3 Korean
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
2.13
The CEDA Translated into Other Languages
39
40
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
2.13
The CEDA Translated into Other Languages
41
42
2.13.4 French
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
2.13
The CEDA Translated into Other Languages
43
Les Dessins qui produisent le son
L’esquisse
Description
–nommez le
dessin
Décrivez les
matières
Les
problèmes
additionels
résolus
Les
personnes
qui
pourraient
utilizer votre
dessin
1
2
44
L’esquisse
Description
–nommez
le dessin
Décrivez
les matières
Les
problèmes
additionels
résolus
Les
personnes
qui
pourraient
utilizer
votre dessin
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
1
Les Dessins qui facilitent la communication
2
2.13
The CEDA Translated into Other Languages
L’esquisse
Description
–nommez le
dessin
Décrivez
les matières
Les
problèmes
additionels
résolus
Les
personnes
qui
pourraient
utilizer
votre dessin
1
Les Dessins qui peuvent voyager
2
45
46
2.13.5 Chinese (Mandarin)
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
2.13
The CEDA Translated into Other Languages
47
48
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
2.13
The CEDA Translated into Other Languages
49
50
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
2.13.6 German
Bevor sie beginnen geben sie bitte folgende 3 Informationen zur Identifizierung an:
Kursnummer _______ Abteilungsbuchstabe ________ Studentennummer __________
CEDA: Creative Engineering Design Assessment. Kreative Beurteilung des
Entwicklungsentwurfes
Jede Seite besteht aus einem Satz von 2,3 oder 4 dreidimensionalen Figuren.
Verwenden Sie bitte eine oder mehrere dieser Figuren, um zwei originale Entwürfe zu erzeugen, welche
Ihnen helfen das allgemeine Ziel zu erreichen, das unter diesen geschrieben steht
Sie dürfen sich die Figuren aus jeglichem Material und in jeder Größe ausdenken, welche Sie sich für
jeden Entwurf vorstellen können
Sie dürfen fest oder hohl sein und können auf jede Art und Weise wie Sie möchten verstellt warden.
Sie dürfen die Figuren auf jeder Seite miteinander kombinieren und können zusätzliche Elemente
zeichnen, wenn es Ihr Entwurf erfordert.
Jedoch kann jede Figur nur einmal pro Entwurf genutzt werden.
Stellen Sie sicher, dass Sie auf jeder Seite:
1. -Ihren Entwurf zeichnen
2. -Jeden Ihrer Entwürfe beschriften (geben Sie eine Kurzbeschreibung über Ihren Entwurf)
3. - Ihre Materialien beschreiben.
4. -Zusätzliche Problemstellungen beschreiben, die zur Lösung Ihres Entwurfs beitragen können.
5. - Die Benutzer (spezielle Personen) von jedem Entwurf bezeichnen.
-Die Gesamtheit dieser Bewertung beträgt 30 Minuten für 3 Seiten, oder 10 Minuten pro Seite.
-Sie können sich Ihre Zeit nach eigenem Ermessen einteilen.
-Es sollten zwei Entwürfe pro Seite erstellt werden
-Des Weiteren sollte immer eine Antwort für jeden Kasten, unterhalb Ihrer Zeichnung, pro Entwurf
stehen.
-Sie können einen Füller oder Bleistift verwenden, was auch immer Sie bevorzugen.
Copyright © 2006, 2007 by Charyton, Jagacinski, & Merrill,
Blacklick, OH. All rights reserved.
2.13
The CEDA Translated into Other Languages
Entwürfe die Geräusche erzeugen
Entwurf/
Konzept
Beschreibung
Ihres
Entwurfs
Beschreiben
Sie die
Materialien
Zusätzliche
Problemlösun
gen
Benutzer
(Personen,
welche den
Entwurf
nutzen
können )
1
2
51
52
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
Entwürfe die die Kommunikation erleichtern
Entwurf/
Konzept
Beschreibung
Ihres
Entwurfs
Beschreiben
Sie die
Materialien
Zusätzliche
Problemlösun
gen
Benutzer
(Personen,
welche den
Entwurf
nutzen
können )
1
2
2.13
The CEDA Translated into Other Languages
Entwürfe die sich bewegen
Entwurf/
Konzept
Beschreibung
Ihres
Entwurfs
Beschreiben
Sie die
Materialien
Zusätzliche
Problemlösun
gen
Benutzer
(Personen,
welche den
Entwurf
nutzen
können )
1
2
53
54
2 The CEDA Manual and Directions
References
Bodner, G. M., & Guay, R. B. (1997). The Purdue visualization of rotations test. The Chemical
Educator, 2(4), 1–17.
Branoff, T. J. (2000). Spatial visualization measurement: A modification of the Purdue
SpatialVisualization Test—Visualization of Rotations. Engineering Design Graphics Journal,
64(2), 14–22.
Carter, C. S., Larussa, M. A., & Bodner, G. M. (1987). A study of two measures of spatial ability
as predictors of success in different levels of general chemistry. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 24(7), 645–657.
Charyton, C. (2005). Creativity (scientific, artistic, general) and risk tolerance among
engineering and music students. (Doctoral Dissertation, Temple University, 2004).
Charyton, C. (2008). Creativity (scientific, artistic, general) and risk tolerance among
engineering and music students. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Publishing.
Charyton, C., & Snelbecker, G. E. (2007). General, artistic and scientific creativity attributes of
engineering and music students. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 213–225.
Charyton, C., & Merrill, J. A. (2009). Assessing general creativity and creative engineering
design in first year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(2), 145–156.
Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R. J., & Merrill, J. A. (2008). CEDA: A research instrument for creative
engineering design assessment. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3),
147–154.
Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R.J., Merrill, J.A., Clifton, W. & Dedios, S. (2011). Assessing creativity
specific to engineering with the revised Creative Engineering Design Assessment (CEDA).
Journal of Engineering Education, 100, 4, 778–799. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAPwiQ2IRQ
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398–1405.
Gough, H. G. (1992). Assessment of creative potential in psychology and the development of a
creative temperament scale for the CPI. In J. C. Rosen & P. McReynolds (Eds.), Advances in
psychology assessment (pp. 225–257). New York: Plenum.
Guay, R. B. (1978). Factors affecting spatial test performance: Sex, handedness, birth order, and
experience. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Guay, R. B. (1980). Spatial ability measurement: A critique and an alternative. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Kinsey, B., Towle, E., Hwang, G., O’Brien, E. J., Bauer, C. F., & Onyancha, R. M. (2007).
Examining industry perspectives related to legacy data and technology toolset implementation. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 71(3), 1–8.
Kovac, R. J. (1989). The validation of selected spatial ability tests via correlational assessment
and analysis of user-processing strategy. Educational Research Quarterly, 13(2), 26–34.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human
creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, J. S., & Morgan, R. F. (1990). Reading to learn in the content areas. Belmont:
Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Roszkowski, M. J., Snelbecker, G. E., & Leimberg, S. R. (1989). Risk tolerance and risk aversion.
In S. R. Leimberg (Ed.), The tools and techniques of financial planning. Cincinnati: The
National Underwriter Company.
Scribner, S. A., & Anderson, M. A. (2005). Novice drafters’ spatial visualization development:
Influence of instructional methods and individual learning styles. Journal of Industrial
Teacher Education, 42(2), 38–60.
References
55
Snelbecker, G. E., McConologue, T., & Feldman, J. M. (2001). Cognitive risk tolerance survey,
Unpublished manuscript.
Snelbecker, G. E., Roszkowski, M. J., & Cutler, N. E. (1990). Investors’ risk tolerance and return
aspirations, and financial advisors’ interpretations: A conceptual model and exploratory data.
Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 377–393.
Sorby, S. A., & Baartmans, B. J. (1996). A course for the development of 3-D spatial
visualization skills. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 60(1), 13–20.
Yue, J., & Chen, D.M. (2001). Does CAD improve spatial visualization ability? Proceedings of
the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition,
Albuquerque, NM.
Chapter 3
Future Directions: Uses
3.1 Importance to STEM
Highly creative people redefine problems, analyze ideas, persuade others, and take
reasonable risks to help generate ideas (Sternberg 2001). Creativity is certainly
among the most important human activity that provides conveniences and products
of human inventiveness (Simonton 2000). Despite its importance to society, creativity has received relatively little attention in psychology compared to other
research topics (Feist 1999; Sternberg and Lubart 1999). Although people have
been engaged for centuries in creativity, only in the past few decades has this
process been considered capable of analysis and improvement (Soibelman and
Peña-Mora 2000). More recently, there is growing interest in and need for the
utilization of creativity in the sciences.
Currently, creativity and critical thinking skills are incorporated into the core
mission statement of many universities, educational programs, and college curriculum. However, few institutions utilize an empirical method of evaluating
creativity. The published literature also suggests that creativity is likely domain
specific (Kaufman and Baer 2005). Even in similar science areas such as engineering and chemistry—creativity may be different.
The CEDA is useful for assessing creativity in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Constructs such as general creativity and
cognitive risk tolerance can also be assessed in STEM disciplines (Charyton and
Snelbecker 2007; Charyton et al. (in press)). These dimensions may contribute
toward a richer understanding of creative design specific to engineering. The
CEDA has been demonstrated to be specifically related to engineering creativity
and spatial skills while measuring aspects that are unique to engineering design.
‘‘Our country’s economic competitiveness and prosperity depend on innovative
STEM-educated young people that work together to solve our problems effectively
and creatively’’ (Brower et al. 2007). According to these authors, educators need to
engage at least 70 % of the student population not just the top 10 % of students.
Students entering STEM are a current vital need, not only for our country, but also
for many countries. If students are taught that engineering can be fun through
C. Charyton, Creative Engineering Design Assessment,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-5379-5_3, Ó The Author(s) 2014
57
58
3 Future Directions: Uses
creative design, this could potentially engage more students to pursue engineering
and may result in increased recruitment and retention in the Colleges of
Engineering.
Creative design and its measurement may act as a catalyst to increase enrollment in STEM. Exposure to engineering and the CEDA could take place in universities, colleges, community colleges, institutes, academies, high schools, and
junior high schools. The CEDA tool may also have the potential to measure the
development of engineering design skills over time. The CEDA was developed to
measure creative engineering design in adolescent students. In regard to ‘‘gifted’’
children, if the child is reading at the 8th grade level, then the CEDA may also be
appropriate at younger chronological ages.
Creating an interest in STEM has become the new frontier (Harriger et al. 2008).
Competitive degree programs require creativity and innovation (Harriger et al.
2008). STEM interests can also be heightened by broadening and establishing the
relationship between creative and performing arts with broader STEM concepts
(Reflections and Measures of STEM Teaching and Learning on K-12 Creative and
Performing Arts Students). Harriger et al. (2008) suggests that designing rock guitars
was successful for engaging high school students. The CEDA includes a problem to
create designs that produce sound that could be useful in early STEM curricula.
Creativity is also a universal application of innovativeness that does not show
favoritism toward race or ethnic boundary (Riffe 1985) nor gender. Underrepresented students’ interests and performance are needed to foster skills that are
prerequisites for STEM careers (Verma 2011). The CEDA has been administered
to men and women of various racial and ethnic backgrounds and is suitable for
diverse populations.
3.2 Usability in Engineering Educational Programs
Creativity is a necessity rather than an accessory for global competitiveness
(Charyton et al. 2011). For sustainability and global competitiveness, the next
generation of human capital needs to consist of creative and innovative college
graduates (Charyton et al. (in press)). To address today’s national and global
challenges, graduates need skills that promote creativity, tolerance, and innovation
(Adams et al. 2006). Fostering creativity should therefore be the cornerstone of
engineering pedagogy (de Vere et al. 2010). As with most fundamentals,
researchers (Cropley and Cropley 2000; Mahboub et al. 2004; Badran 2007)
suggest that creativity and innovation should be promoted early in the education of
engineers. The CEDA is written at the 8th grade level and could be used appropriately early in the education setting for potential future engineers.
Currently, a core mission statement of engineering education is to address
creativity in the curriculum (Charyton et al. 2008). However, many argue that
enhancing creativity in engineering design is still an evident need in many
3.2 Usability in Engineering Educational Programs
59
educational programs (Ferguson 1992; McGraw 2004). It is imperative to note that
few institutions utilize an empirical method of evaluating creativity. Perhaps this
could be due to the complexity, higher-order thinking skills, and ambiguity that
challenge many to measure this potentially infinite construct. ‘‘The relationship
between art and science, and their intersection in creative engineering techniques,
is difficult to quantify’’ (McGraw 2004, p. 34). Measuring these aspects of
invention could be of value to educators assessing engineering creativity (Redelinghuys 2001).
By establishing a foundation for both technical skills with creativity and
innovation, engineering students can further develop and enhance their skills as
they progress in the engineering profession (Badran 2007; Court 1998; Cropley
and Cropley 2000). Originally, when students were chosen to participate in creativity fostering activities, Gluskinos (1971) theorized that students with higher
grade point averages (GPA) would possess the highest level of creative ability.
However, no significant relationship between GPA and creative ability was found
(Gluskinos 1971). This suggests that creativity is different from standard measures
of academic achievement.
The most commonly used processes to foster creativity within engineering
education have been creativity training programs (Badran 2007; Cropley and
Cropley 2000; Mahboub et al. 2004). These programs are designed to convey the
meaning of creativity and creative skills to students (Cropley and Cropley 2000).
Creativity training also teaches students creative thinking techniques, such as
brainstorming (Badran 2007). Creativity programs utilize design project tasks which
allow students opportunities to practice creative thinking using real-world engineering problems (Court 1998; Cropley and Cropley 2000; Mahboub et al. 2004).
We propose that administrations of the CEDA could be used over semesters or
quarters in a two-course sequence. However, we have previously suggested more
time than five weeks between multiple administrations (Charyton and Merrill
2009). My colleagues and I currently recommend at least 10 weeks or longer in
between administrations. The CEDA could also be used to assess engineering
education programs from beginning to end over more time ranges (from freshmen
to senior or in increments each year). The CEDA could also be used when comparing introductory design skill with senior project design skills.
In our previous research, engineering students were similar in terms of creative
engineering design (CEDA) and engineering creativity (PCT) (Charyton et al.
2011). Yet, there were no significant differences between Fundamentals of Engineering I and II students on these measures. We speculate that differences could
potentially be found if there were two administrations of these creativity tests to
the same students in the Fundamentals of Engineering I and II sequence. This may
be a straightforward way to measure creative learning outcomes in series or
sequential course curricula.
It is important to note that gender differences were found on the first version of
the CEDA. Furthermore, in previous studies of the first version of the CEDA,
female engineering and male psychology students scored higher (Charyton et al.
2008) and female engineering students scored higher (Charyton and Merrill 2009).
60
3 Future Directions: Uses
In more recent findings with the revised CEDA, there were no gender differences
(Charyton et al. 2011).
We also found similarities in visualization spatial skills between male and
female engineering students (Charyton et al. 2011), unlike past studies indicating
that males tended to perform better than females (Guay 1978; Kinsey et al. 2007).
We found that male and female engineering students had similar levels of visualization spatial skills that were equivalent for engineering design abilities.
We speculate that female engineering students performing as well as male
engineering students may have to do with women having more access to educational resources since 1978. Historically, women were not encouraged or supported to pursue higher education. At Ohio State University, a Women in
Engineering Program was established in 1979 to assist women engineering students. Resources are available to women engineering students (as well as men
engineering students) through the Women in Engineering Program. More research
is needed addressing spatial performance across genders. Women are still underrepresented in engineering (in many STEM disciplines including physics). Currently, women are currently only about 20 % of the engineering student body;
therefore, more women still need to pursue engineering as a college major and
vocation.
Further assessment of engineering design creativity is still needed, both for
practical reasons and for understanding the nature of creativity specific to engineering design. Continued research of the CEDA, in conjunction with the exploration of various engineering curricula, may benefit the educational programming
of universities and lead to a deeper understanding of the constructs and mechanisms necessary for creativity in engineering design. Outcomes of the CEDA may
enhance our understanding of the creative processes necessary for engineering
design.
The CEDA has advantages over previous measures of engineering creativity.
Important components of engineering design include usefulness, functionality
(Cropley and Cropley 2005; Nickerson 1999), problem finding, and problem
solving (Runco 1994). The CEDA systematically assesses these essential components and cognitive processes.
The CEDA can also be used as a tool to measure the effects of the curriculum
changes on student creative design. By incorporating creativity into the engineering curriculum, we may increase the frequency and quality of inventiveness.
Both convergent thinking and divergent thinking are key to creativity in engineering design. The creative process incorporates these constructs. The CEDA is a
useful tool that measures convergent thinking and divergent thinking which are
valuable to the engineering curriculum. Creativity researchers and engineering
educators may complement each other’s effort toward both the awareness and
measurement necessary for understanding engineering design. The CEDA offers a
systematic method to assess changes and progress with learning creative engineering design in the curriculum.
Engineering education also understands the importance of using project-based
learning curricula with other cultures and countries as a necessary prerequisite for
3.2 Usability in Engineering Educational Programs
61
completing the student’s real-world preparation (Dym et al. 2005). The CEDA has
potential for cross-cultural comparisons in order to understand creative engineering design across cultures. The CEDA can be an indicator of academic progress, problem solving, problem finding, and spatial skills that are necessary for
creativity and innovation in many cultures. The CEDA is a tool that can be used
with diverse project-based curricula and has been translated into Ukrainian,
Spanish, Korean, French, Chinese, and German to address these needs.
3.3 Use in Industry
In this economic climate, the state of the industry depends on design innovation
(Desposito 2009).
Universities need to collaborate with industry to enhance technological and
economic competition (Burnside and Witkin 2008). Ohio State University President, Gordon Gee stated in the Columbus Dispatch that collaboration is more
effective than competition and that universities, industries, and businesses need to
collaborate. Difficulties negotiating such collaborations can be a barrier to competitiveness. Collaborations often benefit both parties involved.
Creativity and innovation are key factors for economic growth (Coconete et al.
2003). Successful organizations have learned to innovate via idea support and risk
taking, which are both needed for climate building and innovation (Zeisler 2002).
Successful organizations also conduct a risk analysis before implementing a creative idea (Coconete et al. 2003).
Investment in research and development are vital for creativity and innovation
(Coconete et al. 2003). Creativity and innovation are crucial to engineers; therefore, researchers must ascertain the factors that motivate or create obstacles for
innovation. The optimum period for stimulating creativity and innovation, either in
the education or in the workforce, must also be determined (Badran 2007; Gawain
1974). For creativity to flourish, multiple collaborative perspectives are needed
(Mauzy and Harriman 2003). It is also important to determine which techniques or
practices will best foster creativity and innovation and how will these practices in
fact benefit the future of the engineer.
As experts in their field, professional engineers are expected to provide technically accurate and efficient solutions to problems (Badran 2007; Coates 2000;
Court 1998; Gawain 1974). Creativity and innovation help ensure that design
solutions are original and adaptive to new engineering problems. For example,
designing an automobile engine that can produce lower carbon emissions helps
adapt to needs of the environment and the consumer (Court 1998).
Although some creativity skills may be taught to engineers in the educational
setting, often the main focus is on technical skills such as math and physics; therefore,
it is crucial to also incorporate creativity and innovation in the professional field
(Badran 2007; Cropley and Cropley 2000; Mao et al. 2009; Tornkvist, 1998).
62
3 Future Directions: Uses
Tornkvist (1998) suggested that engineers use a method called ‘‘drill and practice,’’
defined as repeating practice tasks or problems in order to continually come up with
new creative solutions. By using practice problems and repetitive design tasks,
engineers can refine their creative skills and continue to produce innovative designs.
The basic interaction of engineers with their fellow employees can also influence
creative thinking. For example, brainstorming sessions for design ideas combine
each engineer’s ability to generate more innovative solutions that are reflective of
various sources of information (Salter and Gann 2003).
Mao et al. (2009) and Mich et al. (2004) suggest the use of specific methods to
stimulate creativity and innovation among professional engineers. The Theory of
Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ), an acronym in Russian, includes forty
inventive principles that eliminate technical conflicts between parameters of a
system (Mao et al. 2009). Mao and colleagues stated that if engineers choose any
of the forty inventive principles and apply that principle to solve a design problem,
the engineer will provide a more innovative solution (Mao et al. 2009). For
example, an engineering team was tasked with designing a wastewater treatment
tunnel and encountered a conflict with the tunnel’s design due to exposure of
methane gas from the sewage. Using the TRIZ principle of ‘‘convert harm into
benefit,’’ the engineering team was able to design a mechanism that harnessed the
methane gas as a clean energy source (Mao et al. 2009). The engineering team was
able to design an innovative treatment tunnel that ultimately profited their
clientele.
With the increasing dependence on technology in the modern world,
researchers are also interested in using computer technology to enhance creativity
and innovation in engineers. Mich and colleagues created a software program
named ‘‘EPMCreate,’’ based on the Elementary Pragmatic Model, an analytical
process that helps determine interactions and relationships between two or more
ideas (Mich et al. 2004). ‘‘EPMCreate’’ allowed engineers to input the requirements of a design project as well as the viewpoints of engineers and their clientele.
This resulted in a matrix of solutions that reflected all viewpoints and requirements
(Mich et al. 2004). ‘‘EPMCreate’’ encouraged the engineers to think about the
design problem from several different perspectives to create a solution that was
innovative and yet appropriate to the requirements.
Researchers such as Mao et al. (2009) and Mich et al. (2004) have developed
methods that not only stimulate creativity in professional engineers, but also foster
the creative thinking skills that they may have not been exposed to as a part of the
traditional engineering education curriculum. For over 30 years, there has been a
vital need for creativity and innovation to be a part of the professional field so that
engineers can contribute their original and efficient ideas (Gawain 1974). Whether
using technology, or face-to-face interactions, creativity and innovation are key for
the contribution of novel and useful ideas in the engineering profession.
The engineering consultants and design firms that are most successful are those
that are able to provide creative and adaptive solutions that can adjust with everchanging times (Petre 2004; Salter and Gann 2003). As a field, engineering must
be creative and innovative in order to design solutions that will meet these
3.3 Use in Industry
63
constantly varying problems while simultaneously being relevant and appropriate
(Badran 2007; Cropley and Cropley 2000; Gawain 1974).
The USA needs a strong economy based on innovation. Ken Robinson discussed the current US crisis, ‘‘If you look at the mortality rate among companies,
it’s massive. America is now facing the biggest challenge it’s ever faced—to
maintain its position in the world economies’’ (Azzam 2009, p.24).
Innovation can be thought of as a practical application of creativity. However,
creativity is the prerequisite for innovation. To have inventors, we need innovation. To have innovation, we need creativity. At an immediate level, creativity is
essential to the engineering design process.
In design, a critical first step is to match the designer’s operating mental model
of the system to the end user. Human-centered design is necessary for this process.
Engineering design may proceed more safely through the use of creative problem
solving. Norman (2002) relates the example of a car stereo system: the ‘‘fader’’
control, used to adjust the balance of sound from the front and rear speakers may
be indexed by turning a knob to the right or left. The design engineer, using the
analog dial knob, thinks of the adjustment in a right/left axis. The user’s intuitive
orientation thinks of the adjustment in a horizontal front/back axis because the
speakers are either in front of or in behind the driver position. The resulting
product has now created more problems for user system cognition than just solving
the problem of including a fader control. The designer’s mental model prioritized
available controller parts and spatial part orientation before the user needs. The
expert design engineer must think on a different level—that of the layperson who
has never used the system before (Norman 2002).
The CEDA is a valuable tool for human-centered design and can provide key
information for assessing the usefulness of designs. By providing a method for
assessing creativity in engineering design, educators can enable students to
develop their talents as future innovative engineers.
Creative engineering exists throughout society. Virtually every man-made
object or system in existence or in the past was born of an experimental, purposedriven process to improve or create something from nothing where, if successful,
the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. For example, in 2005, Motorola
introduced the Razr, a cell phone dramatically thinner than all competitive units
that sold 12.5 million units in less than a year. To implement this product, the
development group had to move all associated teams to an innovation laboratory
(Moto City) some miles away from the main headquarters in Chicago. The
innovation laboratory concept helped to break barriers by focusing teams in one
smaller, neutral environment (Weber et al. 2005). Hewett Packer was able to
negotiate contracts with the University of California, Berkeley, and the University
of California, Davis (Burnside and Witkin 2008), as collaborative partners to
enhance technology.
The CEDA also may enhance design in the aviation process by measuring
creativity that is specific to engineering design. Lockheed Martin fighter jets have
been used since World War II, when the B-24 helped the USA end this World War.
64
3 Future Directions: Uses
More recently, their F-35 aircraft has been used by the United States Air Force,
United States Marines, and United States Navy. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,
designed and built by Lockheed Martin, incorporated a revolutionary design for
Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) using a shaft-driven fan in the
forward section of the aircraft compared to the competitive and existing Harrier
design using redirected aft thrust. The creator, Paul Bevilaqua, had been working
on the idea for 20 years (Pipinich 2006). They currently need support for men and
women to access to the world’s only true 5th generation multirole fighter. The
newest innovations, the experiences of military forces, and the expertise of
worldwide teams can help ensure that men and women in the military have the
tools they need.
Innovation, Design Engineering Organization (IDEO), formed in 1991 by a
merger of three design and engineering firms in Palo Alto, California, has helped
to change the way product development and innovation is done (Stone 2003).
Instead of designing just one product, the company specializes in developing
environments, systems, and customs that may pave the way for new product lines.
The human experience is often at the top of their list of priorities. Examples
include the interior of the east coast corridor Acela Express high-speed train and
Boston’s Memorial Hospital where the experience of the nurses was prioritized at
the level of the patients. Redesigning the nurse stations for more privacy and
function and staging areas for patient families with improved way-finding dramatically changed the experience for the visitors and staff (Stone 2003).
Creative talent is the foundation for the development of creative industry (Yin
2009). Road mapping can improve product development (Probert and Radnor
2003). In particular, customers play a role in the creative process (Coconete et al.
2003). Understanding the market, product drivers, product attributes, product plan,
technology roadmap, costs, and risks have been beneficial for systematic integration within Rockwell Automation (Probert and Radnor 2003).
The creative process requires employees to be inquisitive and gain knowledge.
Open-ended questions benefit companies that strive to gain insight about the
creative process (Andriopoulos 2003). Furthermore, more employees need experiences that lead toward increased creativity. Companies should also encourage
their employees to be creative and innovative by rewarding their creative behavior
(Shlaes 1992). High levels of creativity that achieve growth and profitability for
corporations also need to be rewarded (Chu et al. 2004). For example, HewlettPackard’s software solutions emphasize staying creative and flexible, while NetGenesis focuses on the creative abilities of the individual in an egalitarian manner
(Mauzy and Harriman 2003).
Skills such as understanding the problem, product, and users are components of
the CEDA that would be directly relevant to industry. Research and development
of the CEDA tool could be a useful in a variety of settings.
3.4 Use in NASA and the Military
65
3.4 Use in NASA and the Military
Past studies have demonstrated usefulness for engineering design in the United
States Air Force and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Goals of the military are to have a global reach and a global presence (Cummings
and Hall 2004). Both the Mars Exploration Program and Pathfinder utilized creativity for NASA’s Jet Propulsions Laboratory in Pasadena, California (Shirley
2002), which employed creative teams for a hands-on robotic engineering project.
Costs are often a consideration of design (Camarda 2008). The CEDA offers the
measurement of hands-on process exercises that could be useful and cost efficient.
The CEDA has been translated into other languages and can be used globally.
Aerospace is an important industry in the military, and the CEDA could be used at
Air Force academies.
Infrastructure security such as telecommunications, finance, energy, transportation, and essential services (Bishop and Frincke 2003) is conceptualized in the
CEDA problems. Security needs to take account for creative, motivated, and
logical processes that may be out of the norm (Bishop and Frincke 2003). The
CEDA helps the test taker think differently by generating alternative, potential
solutions. Furthermore, the test taker is asked to generate additional problems
solved as a component of each design.
The aeronautics and space programs of the USA, as well as other space-faring
nations, strive to design products that improve services (Noor and Venneri 1998a, b).
The CEDA tool also has a problem that specifically assesses designs that travel. This
problem, as well as the entire CEDA, could be directly useful to NASA as well as
other countries with an existing space program.
Even high-tech industries have cost constraints (Noor and Venneri 1998a). The
problem NASA, industry, and academia face is that early decisions commit 90 %
of costs when there is only 10 % of knowledge (Goldin 1999). These challenges
are so great, not just for NASA, but for the majority of us (Goldin 1999). The
CEDA tool is designed to be insightful and cost effective.
Due to the complexities and challenges of measuring creativity, there have been
different approaches for assessment (Charyton 2005, 2008; Charyton et al. 2011)
and evaluation (Carroll and Latulipe 2009). Carroll and Latulipe (2009) suggest
that the Creativity Support Index (CSI) may be useful and was modeled after the
NASA Task Load Index (TLX). The CSI contains Likert scale questions that aim
to measure Czikszentmihalyi’s flow construct that focuses on being absorbed in the
creative process. The CEDA could be used along with these other measures for
NASA.
NASA has recently developed conceptual design studies to facilitate geometrycentered design methodology (Fredericks et al. 2010). The CEDA contains
geometry-centered basic shapes that can be manipulated in any manner (without
duplication). Designs that are created could reflect aeronautics design tasks.
NASA faces challenges like industry such as cost, time, safety, and quality
products (Goldin 1999). These factors are not only important for NASA and
66
3 Future Directions: Uses
industry but also for engineering education (Goldin 1999). The CEDA incorporates these factors in the design process. Also, environments of potential spacecraft
are uncertain (Goldin 1999). The CEDA measures problem finding which is
generating alternate problems that could exist in order to more accurately and
effectively troubleshoot. The CEDA is a paper-and-pencil assessment that also
identifies potential users. When designing communication devices, the person
taking the CEDA can consider possibilities such as potential users and other
aspects of the design process.
Tools are needed for engineering that enhance productivity, creativity, and
foster innovation from product to mission development (Noor and Venneri 1998b).
Creativity is the vehicle and foundation for innovation. The CEDA is designed to
measure creativity specific to engineering design. This is a skill that can be taught
and can be measured. Through measurement, outcomes may include enhancing
creative engineering design skills for the military and NASA. These skills may be
transferable from the process that is assessed by the CEDA tool.
3.5 Conclusions
Engineering technology is key to the national economy (Lei 2010). In today’s
economy, creativity and competitiveness are economic drivers of innovation
around the world (Florida 2005a). Innovation encompasses the development of
new technologies and economic growth (Cropley 2006). Innovation is based on
creativity and entrepreneurship. Creativity is the first step toward innovation
(Cropley 2006). Industry’s toughest decisions focus on maintaining competitive
during these crucial times (Berglund et al. 2011). Design is key for enhancing
innovation in our global economy.
‘‘Today’s problems can’t be solved by yesterday’s solutions’’ (Steuver 1992,
p. 209). Creative engineers are driven to seek uniqueness, have unusual ideas, and
tolerate unconventional thinking (de Vere et al. 2010). Cultural and creative
industries are the product of the current economic times (Yin 2009). Creative
economies also need to rely on fewer natural resources (Tian and Gao 2011).
Based on the strong industry concern, engineers face an even greater recognition
of the need to promote innovativeness. Creativity is the framework for much of
innovation.
Technology, talent, and tolerance are the 3 big Ts that lead toward creativity
and innovation (Florida 2005a). Wherever creativity and talent go, innovation and
economic growth are sure to follow (Florida 2005b). The USA has been following
with job creation and best jobs (at 11th in the world); however, has been leading
with innovation and the global economy (#1 in the world) (Florida 2005b).
Through prioritizing creativity and innovation, as we did with scientific creativity
in the 1950s, we can lead by global prosperity, not only for the USA but for other
countries also.
3.5 Conclusions
67
The word ‘‘engineer’’ has different meanings (Allen and Self 2008). ‘‘Ingeniatorum’’ from the Roman times meant someone who was ‘‘ingenious’’ with ‘‘gen’’
referring to creation, or ‘‘Genesis.’’ The essence of the words ‘‘creativity,’’ ‘‘create,’’ and ‘‘engineer’’ stems from the act of creation.
Engineering is an applied science, a science, and an art. Creativity is a skill that
all engineers can learn and practice, if they choose. These persons need hands-on
opportunities to practice design skills. It is a disservice not to give engineering
students and engineers an opportunity to develop and use their creativity skills.
However, engineering students should not be forced to be creative. They should
have the opportunity to be creative and take creativity classes if they choose.
Nonetheless, both engineering and creativity are skills that can be developed over
time. It is also imperative to note that persons in the workforce can incorporate
engineering design skills and practice, if they choose. Employees should not be
threatened to be creative or be at risk for losing their job if they are not. The CEDA
is a tool that provides hands-on assessment of engineering creativity, engineering
design, and most of all creative engineering design.
Oftentimes, for innovation in engineering, people of various backgrounds work
in teams. Literature suggests that when working in teams, each development team
needs to work within a critical mass of resources, constraints, support, and environments that encouraged creative, unconventional thinking (de Vere et al. 2010).
The CEDA can also be used in team environments.
I conceptualize creativity as a source for good. Purposes for creativity as well as
the CEDA should be a force for good in order to benefit humankind that is used to
enhance people’s lives, their health outcomes, and the prosperity of our nation as
well as other countries.
Cross-cultural awareness is important for a richer understanding of creative
engineering design. Furthermore, efforts should be primarily to promote sustainability as well as aviation and space travel. The CEDA has potential uses for
educational programs, industry, NASA, and the military. The CEDA is a costeffective tool through assessing creativity specific to engineering design. Through
usefulness, appropriateness, constraint satisfaction, and human-centered design
when considering users, the CEDA acts as a tool for assessing creative problem
solving and creative problem finding.
Best wishes to you with your endeavors and prosperous uses for the CEDA.
May you enhance people’s lives in your projects with the CEDA.
References
Adams, R., Aldridge, D., Atman, C., Barker, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Bjorklund, S., et al.
(2006). The research agenda for the new discipline of engineering education. Journal of
Engineering Education, 95, 259–261.
Allen, J. E., & Self, A. (2008). Analysis of the integration of knowledge and novelty in creative
engineering design. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal
of Aerospace Engineering, 222(G1), 127–167. doi:10.1243/09544100JAERO237
68
3 Future Directions: Uses
Andriopoulos, C. (2003). Six paradoxes in managing creativity: an embracing act. Long Range
Planning, 36(4), 375–388.
Azzam, A. (2009). Why creativity now: a conversation with Sir Ken Robinson. Educational
Leadership, 67(1), 22–26.
Badran, I. (2007). Enhancing creativity and innovation in engineering education. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 573–585.
Berglund, A., Klasen, I., Hanson, M., Grimheden, M. (2011). Changing mindsets: improving
creativity and innovation in engineering education. In 13th International Conference on
Engineering and Product Design Education, E and PDE 2011, Sept 8, 2011–Sept 9, 2011,
(pp. 121–126).
Bishop, M., & Frincke, D. (2003). Information assurance the West Point way. IEEE Security &
Privacy, 64–67.
Brower, T., Grimsley, R., Newberry, P. (2007). Stem is not just a four individually lettered word.
In 114th Annual ASEE Conference and Exposition, 2007, June 24, 2007–June 27, 2007,
Dassault Systemes; HP; Lockheed Martin; IBM; DuPont; et al.
Burnside, B., & Witkin, L. (2008). Forging successful university-industry collaborations.
Research Technology Management, 51(2), 26–30.
Camarda, C. J. (2008). A return to innovative engineering design, critical thinking and systems
engineering. In 29th International Thermal Conductivity Conference, ITCC29 and the 17th
International Thermal Expansion Symposium, ITES17, June 24, 2007–June 27, 2007 (pp.
3–42).
Carroll, E. A., & Latulipe, C. (2009). The creativity support index. In 27th International
Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2009, April 4,
2009–April 9, 2009 (pp. 4009–4014).
Charyton, C. (2005). Creativity (scientific, artistic, general) and risk tolerance among
engineering and music students. (Doctoral Dissertation, Temple University, 2004).
Charyton, C. (2008). Creativity (scientific, artistic, general) and risk tolerance among
engineering and music students. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Publishing.
Charyton, C. & Snelbecker, G.E. (2007). General, artistic and scientific creativity attributes of
engineering and music students. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 213–225.
Charyton, C., & Merrill, J. A. (2009). Assessing general creativity and creative engineering
design in first year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(2), 145–156.
Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R. J., & Merrill, J. A. (2008). CEDA: a research instrument for creative
engineering design assessment. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3),
147–154.
Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R.J., Merrill, J.A., Clifton, W. & Dedios, S. (2011). Assessing creativity
specific to engineering with the revised Creative Engineering Design Assessment (CEDA).
Journal of Engineering Education 100, 4, 778–799. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAPwiQ2IRQ
Charyton, C., Snelbecker, G.E., Elliott, J.O. & Rahman, M.A. (in press). College Students’
General Creativity as a Predictor of Cognitive Risk Tolerance. International Journal of
Creativity and Problem Solving.
Chu, F., Kolodny, A., Maital, S. & Perlmutter, D. (2004). The innovation paradox: reconciling
creativity & discipline how winning organizations combine inspiration with perspiration.
International Engineering Management Conference 2004 (pp. 949–953).
Coates, J. (2000). Innovation in the future of engineering design. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 64(2), 121–132.
Coconete, D. E., Moguilnaia, N. A., Cross, R. B. M., De Souza, P. E., Sankara Narayanan, E. M.
(2003). Creativity: a catalyst for technological innovation. In IEMC’03 Proceedings,
Managing Technologically Driven Organizations: ‘the Human Side of Innovation and
Change’, November 2, 2003–November 4, 2003 (pp. 291–295).
Court, A. W. (1998). Improving creativity in engineering design education. European Journal of
Engineering Education, 23(2), 141.
References
69
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2000). Creativity and innovation in the systems engineering
process. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual International Symposium on Systems
Engineering.
Cropley, D., & Cropley, A. (2005). Engineering creativity: a systems concept of functional
creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: faces of the muse
(pp. 169–185). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cropley, D. H. (2006). The role of creativity as a driver of innovation. In 2006 IEEE
International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, ICMIT 2006, June
21, 2006–June 23, 2006, 2 (pp. 561–565).
Cummings, D. B., & Hall, D. W. (2004). Exploiting the creative process for innovative air vehicle
design. In 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Jan 5, 2004–Jan 8, 2004 (pp.
527–534).
de Vere, I., Kuys, B. & Melles, G. (2010). The Importance of Design: a comparative evaluation of
problem solving in engineering education. In International Conference on Engineering and
Product Design Education Sept 2, 2010–Sept 3, 2010 (pp. 1–6).
Desposito, J. (2009). How do we get out of this mess? Try new ideas. Electronic Design.
Retrieved from http://electronicdesign.com/article/communications/how-do-we-get-out-ofthis-mess-try-new-ideas21306.aspx.
Dym, C., Agogino, A., Eris, O., Frey, D., & Leifer, L. (2005). Engineering design thinking,
teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 103–120.
Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R.
J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 273–296). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Ferguson, E. S. (1992). Engineering and the mind’s eye. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Florida, R. (2005a). America’s looming creativity crisis. IEEE Engineering Management Review,
33(1), 105–113.
Florida, R. (2005b). The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent. New
York: Harper Collins.
Fredericks, W. J., Antcliff, K. R., Costa, G., Deshpande, N., Moore, M. D., Miguel, E. A. S.,
Snyder, A. N. (2010). Aircraft conceptual design using vehicle sketch pad. In 48th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition,
January 4, 2010–January 7, 2010.
Gawain, T. H. (1974). Some reflections on education for creativity in engineering. IEEE
Transactions on Education, 17(4), 189–192.
Gluskinos, U. M. (1971). Criteria for student engineering creativity and their relationship to
college grades. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8(3), 189–195.
Goldin, D. S. (1999). Tools of the future. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(1), 31–35.
Guay, R. B. (1978). Factors affecting spatial test performance: Sex, handedness, birth order, and
experience. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Harriger, B., French, M., Aikens, M., & Shade, S. (2008). Using guitar manufacturing to recruit
students into stem disciplines. 2008 In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 22,
2008–June 24, 2008.
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2005). Creativity across domains: faces of the muse. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kinsey, B., Towle, E., Hwang, G., O’Brien, E. J., Bauer, C. F., & Onyancha, R. M. (2007).
Examining industry perspectives related to legacy data and technology toolset implementation. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 71(3), 1–8.
Lei, F. (2010). Research on education of creativity and innovation. Applied Mechanics and
Materials, 34–35, 1742–1745.
Mahboub, K. C., Portillo, M. B., Liu, Y., & Chadranratna, S. (2004). Measuring and enhancing
creativity. European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(3), 429–436.
70
3 Future Directions: Uses
Mao, X., Zhang, X., & AbouRizk, S. (2009). Enhancing value engineering process by
incorporating inventive problem-solving techniques. Journal of Construction Engineering &
Management, 135(5), 416–425.
Mauzy, J., & Harriman, R. A. (2003). Three climates for creativity. Research Technology
Management, 46(3), 27–30.
McGraw, D. (2004). Expanding the mind: Creativity is such an integral part of being an engineer,
but how on earth do you teach it? ASEE Prism, 13, 31–36.
Mich, L., Anesi, C., Berry, D. M. (2004). Requirements engineering and creativity: an innovative
approach based on a model of the pragmatics of communication. In Proceedings of
Requirements Engineering: Foundation of Software Quality REFSQ, 4.
Nickerson, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity
(pp. 392–430). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Noor, A. K., & Venneri, S. L. (1998a). ISE—intelligent synthesis environment for future
aerospace systems. Part 1 (of 5), March 21, 1998–March 28, 1998, 2 (pp. 467–476).
Noor, A. K., & Venneri, S. L. (1998b). ISE provides a new frontier for synthesis of complex
engineering products and missions. Part 3 (of 5), Oct 11, 1998–Oct 14, 1998, 3 (pp.
2698–2703).
Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things [The psychology of everyday things]. New
York: Basic Books.
Petre, M. (2004). How expert engineering teams use disciplines of innovation. Design Studies,
25(5), 477–493.
Pipinich, R. E. (2006). High-stakes creativity. Industrial Engineer: IE, 38(6), 30–35.
Probert, D., & Radnor, M. (2003). Frontier experiences from industry-academia consortia:
corporate roadmappers create value with product and technology roadmaps. Research
Technology Management, 46(2), 27–30.
Redelinghuys, C. (2001). Proposed measures for invention gain an engineering design. Journal of
Engineering Design, 11, 245–263.
Riffe, W. J. (1985). Creativity: catalyst for education. Motor Vehicle Technology: Mobility for
Prosperity, 589–593.
Runco, M.A. (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Westport, CT: Ablex
Publishing.
Salter, A., & Gann, D. (2003). Sources of ideas for innovation in engineering design. Research
Policy, 32(8), 1309–1324.
Shirley, D. L. (2002). Managing creativity: A creative engineering education approach. ASEE
Annual Conference and Exposition: Vive L’Ingenieur, June 16, 2002–June 19, 2002,
2367–2380.
Shlaes, C. (1992). Rewarding and stimulating creativity and innovation in technology companies.
In Proceedings of the 1991 Portland International Conference on Management of
Engineering and Technology—PICMET ‘91, Oct 27, 1991–Oct 31, 1991 (pp. 609–612).
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: cognitive, personal, developmental and social aspects.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 151–158.
Soibelman, L. & Peña-Mora, F. (2000). Distributed multi-reasoning mechanism to support
conceptual structural design. Journal of Structural Engineering, 733–742.
Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? Its dialectical relation to
intelligence and wisdom. American Psychologist, 56(4), 360–362.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concepts of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Steuver, J. K. (1992). Creativity: a response to change and competition. In 1992 International
SAVE Proceedings, May 31, 1992–June 3, 1992, 27 (pp. 209–214).
Stone, B. (2003). Reinventing everyday life. Newsweek, 142(17), 90–92.
Tornkvist, S. (1998). Creativity: Can it be taught? The case of engineering. European Journal of
Engineering Education, 23(1), 5–12.
References
71
Tian, Y., & Gao, C. (2011). Management strategies of creative industries uncertainty. In 2011
International Conference on Business Computing and Global Informatization, July 29, 2011–
July 31, 2011 (pp. 79–82).
Verma, A. K. (2011). Attracting K-12 students towards engineering disciplines with project based
learning modules. In 118th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 26, 2011–June 29,
2011.
Weber, J., Holmes, S., & Palmeri, C. (2005). ‘Mosh pits’ of creativity. Business Week, 3958,
98–100.
Yin, Q. (2009). Talking about design and cultural and creative industry. In 2009 IEEE 10th
International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design and Conceptual Design: EBusiness, Creative Design, Manufacturing—CAID and CD’2009, Nov 26, 2009–Nov 29,
2009 (pp. 2159–2162).
Zeisler, S. (2002). From quality to break through: New heights in innovation. 56th Annual
Quality Congress Proceedings, May 20, 2002–May 22, 2002, 543–547.
About the Author
Christine Charyton, PhD, is a visiting assistant professor in the Department of
Neurology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and a lecturer in
the Department of Psychology at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio.
Dr. Charyton’s research encompasses the synthesis and unification of
interdisciplinary knowledge and transdisciplinary science. Dr. Charyton focuses
on the integration of psychology and engineering with cognitive and learning
interventions. Dr. Charyton has been actively working on the measurement and
assessment of creative engineering design and cognitive risk tolerance.
Dr. Charyton is also a licensed psychologist in private practice specializing in
the treatment of comorbid psychological and neurological conditions using
cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in combination with creative interventions
such as mindfulness and positive psychology. Dr. Charyton’s clinical research
integrates interventional research with neuroscience and epidemiology.
C. Charyton, Creative Engineering Design Assessment,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-5379-5, Ó The Author(s) 2014
73